IMAGE  EVALUATION 
TEST  TARGET  (MT-3) 


/ 


x^ 


K// 


o 


Nj> 


V, 


/. 


My 


1.0         ' 

\\_ 

L25   Iju^ 


1,6 


^ 


_^5; 


c^,!^. 


Tv 


^;^ 


^c>^ 


4 


/ 


/ 


<?> 


'V/ 


Ph()t(),yi\i|)lii(: 

Sciences 
(bipor.ition 


*'t 


\^^^ 


-i^ 


^v 


\ 


\ 


23  WEST  MAIN  StREET 

WEBSTER  N  Y     14S80 

716     875  4S03 


^ 

^.A 


.^ 


o 


-«►, 


-^^^ 


Q.^ 


',; 


/ 


^9 


CIHM/ICMH 

Microfiche 

Series. 


CIHM/ICMH 
Collection  de 
microfiches. 


Can.idiiui  liistitutn  t(.r   Historu.il  Microrepruciuctions      Instit'.it  cirutdiHti  de  mururt-productions  histonqoes 


T(;i  h(iM:,il  JIHJ   ^^lhllOc)r,)phll.    N>itfs    NoTcs  r.>.  »\(\i(j;]i'-,  i-}    |h  imc  >•)' ,)|ihi(iu»'s 


Hv  I'v,!iUj!»'  ti.is  .HTt'niptf'fl  tf>  iibt.iir^  ?ht>  best 

■  I'l.jii^,)!  (  opv    ,iv.)il<ihlt»  fof  filrrunq    F^tNittifPs  of  rh.s 

opv   which  Ml, IV  be  hiblioqr,iphK:iillv  uriKU'*' 
.\-ti.i  h    '11,1V  ,ii1»>r    ctnv   of   tfii'   im,HJHS  in   \ht- 
'MprndiK  tion     Mr   vvfin  h   rii,)v   siqnif  K;,)nti  v   rh.mqf' 
the  ,isu,ii  FMt'thod  of  filnurK)     .ttp  <:hrt(:kHi.l   b'>iovv 


I    lris*it»i!    .1   mil  r.itilrvii'   If   iDfillnur    .■  n  iti.  pl.i  i  r  c 

qii  !|  ii.ji  ,1  t'tc  possibli!  ()('  s»'  priKurr:      1. ;.  ■.  'icT.ni'. 

<U'  i.Pt  ext'tnpl.firc     jiii  ■-.ipfir   ()(Mi!  ft",    ijfiiijue'-  ilii 

point     ("if'     Vllt'     hlbllMIJtiiptlKJIlt'       (Jul      ()!>,.  VIMlt     M>M(Mlc 

i/fn»  im.jqe   r»'pr  oiliji  tp     on   qui    p^MlVt"'nt  tMKp"    jri.. 
"Mxilf  i(  ,)f  ion    'ians    1,1    rt'fit  luiiic    riMrrti,ilt'    ,<•>    tiii'i.n;.' 
MMit     ruiiqi.if^s  (I   ()Hs->OHr. 


r.oioiirt'f)   covt'fs 

(_  no  vt'fv  urf>  ()f>  rtUilHiir 


Coldurocl   [iftqf'S 
Piiqt's  (U>  I  (uilcut 


(".overs   r1,iiTi,U)»'(l 

C  oij  vcM  u'f>  f'MiJoni  (TiiUfff 


P.iqHs   (l,Hii,)()»'r! 
P.Kp's  'MMlofii  n  i.rjHe 


(lovt'ts  rtfstoft'd   ciMfl    O'   itifnin.tted 

Ci  Mi  v>'rt  i; 'H   ft'St.nireft  ^t    i)ii   pt'llir  .i  li'f 


P.Hjt's  rt'sto'ecl   ,inil      if   siriMn.itt'd 
Pkjhs   rf»st.Ui '  et's  ct    on   pnllii  uU'm 


C-ilVt"     ntlH     niiSSMUj 

1.  •■•  '■\|>^  fie  sOuvHtturt'  ni,)ru)n' 


P.xj^s    ilisi  ()!' .ii't'(i     St, lined   "r    1ii«t'[1 
PrHjt'S    ilei   ;jl<!'ees     !,!(   tU'lt'cs    cM.    pMJ'i'' 


Coloiirpd  rTi;)ps 

CdttMS  genqr,iphi(jut's  en  i/ouleur 


P.K-jes  dt'tii'  tit'ij 
P  ic)es   df't.e  h^••-•■ 


Colour'MJ   int<     I  ^'     'it'ie'   Tti<iri   tlfue  or   ni.u  k 
Efifre  de  coijleur     i  e    ,nitre  que  t)tHwe  ou  noife 


Stii  i^^rh'ouqtl 
Tl  ,|fisp,|f  piii   e 


CoUni'Hd   pKites  ,Hid    ;)'  ilUisTr,inor>s 
Pl<inrhes  et    ou  illust r,itio''is  en  icuiiew 


Qij.liK'V    of    prin'    v.ifies 

(ju.ilite     ru;<:j,iie     te   I  impression 


Boiiiid  With  otfier  fnaterMi 
ReiiP  iivec   d  .iLitrMs  dci  umerits 


Ini  UiiU's  supp'efiier.t.ir  V   n>,itf>f  >.it 
Coniprend   (hi   m.itenei  supplen^en!  ,ii ' 


r^qht  bindiru)  nii-iv  cujse  shadows  or  distortim- 
.ilonq  interior  rTi;jrqin 

L  .) 'e  iitire  serff'i-  peut  Ciuser  de  !  onitire  ou  .le  l-i 
distortioti   ie  lonc)   de  i.i  ;n,irc)e   mterieure 

Bl.mk    te.ives   ,id(ie()   dunnq    rf.c,T()r,it,On    m.iv 
jppe.j'  within  thf>  tent    Whenever  possible    t'lese 
h.ive  been  omitted  frorri  filminq 
II  se  peut  que  certiiines  p.iqes  bliin'  hes  .iioutees 
uirs  d  une  rest.iuration  .ippdraissent   d,ins  ie  texte 
fi.iis    lorsque  cel.i  et.nt  possible    ces  p.iqes  n  of  t 
(i,is  ete  tilriiees 


O'llv  editK.iri  .iv.niable 
Seule  eijition   rlisponible 

P.iqes    wh<lllv    or    p.irti.lllv    obs(    l.'er)    hv    er-lt,! 
siqiS      tissues      et'         h.ive   tjeen    r  id  il  ni  t'd    t*' 
t'nsure   ttle    tit's*    [lusMble    .m.icje 
Les   p.iqes   tot.iiement   on    (),ir  t  leiicn' eti  f 
diS'    oil   les    p,ir    un    teuillet    f!   ert.it.i      u''''    pi'i.j'i 
et(  on!    ete    dlmees    ,i    noiive.io    tie    t,|i    on    .i 

otitenif    si   rrie'lleure   mi.iqe   ii(>'-Sit;|e 


AAddifioHfjl  comments 
ConuTientiiires  sopplem,.fi  t.ii  res 


ffiis  iteni  IS  filtTied  ,)t  the  redui'tion  latio  (-heckoc)  below 

Ce  (foi  urnent  est  fihne  .lu  t,iux  de  redu'tit)n  indique  ci  dessous 


■OX 


14X 


18X 


22X 


^bX 


30  X 


U'x 


16X 


Mj< 


24  X 


28  X 


12  X 


■"•'■''•    ''M    "" 


I .  I      '     ■    n'  :■-      A 


j. ,■',.•     ■.-. 


...,:■;.'    O      ' .  ,       '    ■ 

.\  t    '•!       1,   ,."  i;(>f     1  ti-      Ail 
'    '!•  'f  ■ !    >■.•..(!  '■!    i!  'ij    'Mi    !  I:i 
'  ■ '    .M  ii-  ff  ,tl(''I    ■  'I  iOr  I''. 


K.i  »  .'^  '■■    n 


:\ 


i.  i\i' 


"ijft    ,)r!ii   1.  ,11   ti:    ;>( .?';  ;■ 
• . ' M !  • ' I • .  i     T  '  i  I     t  ■  i  i  ■  1 1  /^ ■   i  ; 


♦-! 


'^''■^4^1'^ 


AN 


■■>-,  .'^•-■■'  ^ 


i:-i**-':4v^ 


ADDRESS 


M-i  '^w 


Memherjs  of  the  House  of  JRepresentatives 


OF   THE 


CONGRESS  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


TO  THEIR     V* 


CONSTlttrENTS, 


i      .* 


;-.,p.,,j., 

QN  THE  SUBJECT 


<£'r«L 


WAR  WITH  GREAT  BililTAIN. 


%•  '  -.. 


# 


'•    '^*•«^■; 


fiOSTOK  i 


r  '■•* 


■'1^'^ 


mOM  Ti|B  PRESS  OF  JOHN  lJUOt,  Jjinv 

•••*«tt  *•■•  -  '' 

":  ISIS.  ,    ,..^  'V:. 


■   •'"  ■"  'i  ^^    ^t" 


^I^S 


i.V-» 


</ 


nf  ,?'  '^' 


T 


'7      V 


A- 


A- 


ABDRES8. 


The  undersigned  Membera  of  the  Houte  of  Refireaentatives,  t<t  their 
Respective  Conttituenia. 


A  Republic  has  for  its  basis  Uic  capacity  and  right  of  the  people 
to  govern  themselves.     A  main  principle  of  a  representative  rcpub- 
lie  is  the  responsibility  of  the  representatives  to  their  cnstituents. 
Freedom  and  publicity  of  debate  are  essential  to  the  preservation  ot 
such  forms  of  government.  Every  arbitraryabndgement  of  the  right 
ofspecch  in  representatives,  is  a  direct  infringement  of  the  liberty 
of  the  peoole  ;  every  unnecessary  concealment  of  their  proceedings 
an  approximation  towards  tyranny.    When,  by  systematic  rules,  a 
majority  takes  to  itself  the  right,  at  its  pleasure,  of  limiting  speech, 
or  denying  it  altogether ;  when  secret  sessions  multiply ;  and  m 
proportion  to  the  importance  of  questions,  is  the  studious  conceal- 
ment of  debate,  a  people  may  be  assured,  that,  sueh  practices  con- 
tinuing, their  freedom  is  but  ahort-Uved.  . 

Reflections,  such  as  these,  have  been  forced  upon  the  attention  ot 
the  undersigned.  Members  of  the  House  of  Representatives  of  the 
United  States,  by  tiie  events  of  the  present  session  of  Congress. 
They  have  witnessed  a  principle,  adopted  as  the  law  of  the  House, 
by  which,  under  a  novel  application  of  the  previous  question,  a  power 
is  assumed  by  the  majority  to  deny  the  privilege  of  speech,  at  any 
stage,  and  under  any  circumstances  of  debate.  And  reccnUy,  by  an 
unprecedented  assumption,  the  right  to  give  reasons  for  an  original 
motion,  has  been  made  to  depend  upon  the  will  of  the  majority. 

Principles  more  hostile  than  these  to  the  existence  of  representa- 
tive liberty  cannot  easily  be  conceived.  It  is  not,  however  on  these 
accounts,  weighty  as  they  are,  that  the  undersigned  have  undertaken 
this  address.  A  subject  of  higher  and  more  immediate  importance 
impels  them  to  the  present  duty.  »....,     a^a 

The  momentous  question  of  war,  with  Great  Britain,  is  decided. 
On  this  topic,  so  vital  to  your  interests,  the  right  of  public  debate,  in 
the  face  of  the  world,  and  especially  of  their  constituents,  has  been 
denied  to  your  representatives.  They  have  been  called  into  secret 
session,  on  this  most  interesting  of  all  your  public  relations,  although 
the  circumstances  of  the  time  and  of  the  nation  aflbrded  no  one  rea- 
son for  secrecy,  unless  it  be  found  in  the  apprehension  of  the  effect 
of  public  debate  on  public  opinion ;  or  of  public  opinion  on  the  re- 
sult of  the  vote. 
Except  the  message  of  the  President  of  the  United  Staflcs,  whicTt 


Js  now  betoie  tl.c  public,  i.oihiiig  confide ntiul  was  communicated. 

1  iiai  message  coiuaincd  no  fact,  not  pfcviouslv  know  n.     No  one  rea- 

sor.  lor  war  was  intimated,  but  such  as  was  of  a  nature  public  and 

nutorious.     Tl.c  inicntion  to  wage  war  and  invade  Canada  had  been 

lontr  since  openly  avowed.     The  object  of  hostile  menace  had  been 

ost.ntatiously  announced.     The  inadequacy  of  both  our  army  and 

iiiiv\  lor  successful  i:)vasion,  and  the  insnflicicncy  of  the  fortifications 

lor  Uk  secuiity  o[ our  seaboard,  were, every  where,  known.   Yet  the 

tlnors  oi  CouKress  were  shut  upon  the  people.     They  have  been 

tiuvlully  kept  in  ignor.ince  of  the  progress  of  measures,  until  the 

purposes  of  administration  were  consummated,  and  the  fate  of  the 

country  scaled.     In  a  situation  so  extraordinary,  the  undersigned 

have  deemed  it  their  duty  by  no  act  of  theirs  to  sanction  a  proceeding 

so  novel  and  arbitrary.     On  the  contrary,  they  made  every  attempt 

in  their  power  to  attain  publicity  for  their  proceedings.     All  such 

attempts  were  vain.     When  this  momentous  subject  was  stated,  as 

for  debate,  they  demanded  that  the  doors  should  be  opened. 

This  being  refused,  they  declined  discussion ;  being  perfectly  con- 
vinced, from  indications  too  plain  to  be  misunderstood,  that,  in  the 
house, all  argument,  with  closed  doors,  was  hopeless;  and  that  any 
act,  giving  implied  validity  to  so  flagrant  an  abuse  of  power,  would 
be  little  less  than  treachery  to  the  essential  rights  of  a  free  people. 
In  the  situation  to  which  the  undersigned  have  thus  been  reduced, 
they  arc  compelled  reluctantly  to  resort  to  this  public  declaration  of 
such  views  of  tlie  state  aud  relations  of  the  country,  as  determined 
their  judgment  and  vote  upon  the  question  of  war.  A  measure  of 
this  kind  has  appeared  to  the  undersigned  to  be  more  imperiously 
demanded,  by  the  circumstance  of  a  message  and  manifesto  being 
prepared,  and  circulated  at  public  expcnce,  in  which  the  causes  for 
war  were  enumerated  and  the  motives  for  it  concentrated,  in  a  man- 
ner suited  to  agitate  and  influence  the  public  mind.  In  executing 
this  task,  it  will  be  the  study  of  the  undersigned  to  reconcile  the 
great  duty  they  owe  to  the  people  with  that  constitutional  respect 
which  is  due  to  the  administrators  of  public  concerns, 

I.i  commencing  this  view  of  our  aflairs,  the  undersigned  would 
fiiil  in  duty  to  themselves,  did  they  refrain  from  recurring  to  the 
course,  in  relation  to  public  measures,  which  they  adopted  andliavc 
undeviatingly  pursued  from  the  commencement  of  this  long  and 
eventful  session  ;  in  which  they  deliberately  sarrificed  every  minor 
consideration  to,  what  they  deemed,  the  best  interests  of  the  country. 
For  a  succession  of  years  the  undersigned  have  from  principle  dis- 
approved a  scries  of  restrictions  upon  commerce,  according  to  their 
estimation,  insuflicicnt  as  respected  foreign  nations,  and  injurious, 
cliicfly,  tooursclves.  Success,  in  the  system,  had  become  identified 
with  tiic  pride,  the  character  and  the  hope  of  our  cabinet.  As  is  natural 
with  men,  who  have  a  great  stake  depending  on  the  success  of  a  fa- 
vourite llicory,  pertinacity  seemed  to  increase  as  its  hopelessness  be- 
came aj)parcnt.  As  tlie  insufi\ciency  of  this  system  could  not  be  ad- 
mitted, by  its  advocates,  without  insuring  its  abandonment,  ill 
^uccetss  was  carefully  attributed  to   the  ii^iluence  of  opposition. 


u 
u 
n 
c 
d 

P 

til 
si 
III 

si 
^v 
cc 
d, 
h( 
al 
fc 
iia 
vi- 
lli 
l,y 
by 

pc 

CO 

frc 

thi 

tlu 

vii 

of 

Tl 

urc 

AV 

eni 

liv 

1 

s!u. 

aw 

the 

pie 

pes 

tioi 

tily 

oft 

wai 

and 

tani 


I 


I'o  tins  cuiisc  the  people  were  tauRlit  to  charge  its  successive  t'ai!- 
wrc.s,  and  not  to  its  intrinsic  imbecility.  In  this  state  of  things  the 
undersigned  deemed  it  proper,  to  take  away  all  apology  for  adher- 
ence to  this  oppressive  system.  They  were  desirous,  at  a  period  so 
uuical  in  publick  affairs,  as  far  as  was  consistent  with  tiic  indepen- 
<lencc  of  opinion,  to  contribute  to  the  restoration  of  harmony  in  the 
publick  councils,  and  concord  among;  the  people.  Aiid  if  any  advan- 
tage could  be  thus  obtained  in  our  foreign  relations,  the  under- 
signed,  being  engaged  iniio  purpose  of  personal  or  party  advance- 
ment, would  rejoice  in  such  an  occurrence. 

The  course  of  public  measures  also,  at  the  opening  <if  the  ses- 
sion, gave  hope  that  an  enlarged  and  enlightened  system  of  defence, 
with  provision  for  security  of  our  maritime  rights,  was  about  to  be 
commenced,  a  purpose  which,  wherever  found,  they  deemed  it  their 
duty  to  foster,  by  giving,  to  any  system  of  measures,  thus  compre- 
licnsive,  as  unobstructed  a  course  as  was  consistent  with  their  gener- 
al  sense  of  publick  duty.  After  a  course  of  policy,  thus  liberal  and 
•onciliatory,  it  was  cause  of  regret  that  a  communication  should 
liavc  been  purchased  by  an  unprecedented  expenditure  of  secret  ser- 
vice money;  and  used,  by  the  chief  magistrate,  to  disseminate  nus- 
jiicion  and  jealousy  ;  and  to  excite  reseatnicnt  among  the  citizens, 
l)y  suggesting  imputations  against  a  portion  of  thein,  as  unmerited 
l)y  their  patriotism,  as  unwarranted  by  evidence. 

It  has  always  been  the  opinion  of  the  undersigned,  that  a  system  of 
peace  was  the  policy,  which  most  comported  with  the  character, 
condition,  and  interest  of  the  United  States  ;  that  their  remoteness 
from  the  theatre  of  contest,  in  Europe,  was  thefr  peculiar  felicity,  and 
that  nothing  but  a  necessity,  absolutely  ^per  •  19,  should  induce 
them  to  enter  as  parties  into  wars,  in  which  cv  .,  consideration  of 
virtue  and  policy  seems  to ue  forgotten,  under  the  •  .erbearing  sway 
of  rapacity  and  ambition.  There  is  a  new  era  in  human  affairs. — 
The  European  world  is  convulsed.  The  advantages  of  our  situation 
are  peculiar.  «'  Why  quit  our  own  to  stand  upon  foreign  ground  ? 
Why,  by  interweaving  o<ir  destiny  with  that  of  any  part  of  Europe, 
entangle  our  peace  and  prosperity  in  the  toils  of  European  ambition, 
tivalsliip,  interest,  humour,  or  caprice  ?"• 

In  addition  to  the  many  moral  and  prudential  considerations,  which 
sliould  deter  thoughtful  men' from  hastening  into  the  perils  of  such 
a  war,  there  were  some  peculFar  to  the  United  States,  resulting  from 
the  texture  of  the  government,  and  the  political  relations  of  the  peo- 
ple. A  form  of  government,  in  no  stnall  degree  experimental,  com- 
posed of  powerful  and  independent  sovereignties,  associated  in  rela- 
tions, some  of  which  arc  critical,  as  well  as  novel,  should  not  be  has- 
tily precipitated  into  situations,  calculated  to  put  to  trial  the  strength 
of  the  moral  bond,  by  which  they  are  united.  Of  all  states,  that  of 
war  is  most  likely  to  call  into  activity  the  passions,  which  arc  hostile 
and  dangerous  to  such  a  form  of  government.  Time  is  yet  impor- 
tant to  our  country  to  settle  and  mature  its  recent  institutions.     A- 

•  WasliiiigtOB. 


'>(»ve  all,  it  appeared  to  tl>c  undorsiBncd,  from  siRns  not  to  be  niistak- 
<ii,  that  if  wo  entered  upon  this  war,  wc  did  it  as  a  divided  people  ; 
not  only  from  acnse  of  the  inadequacy  of  our  means  to  success,  hut 
from  moral  and  political  objections  of  yrcat  weight,  and  very  general 
iniluenco. 

It  appears  to  the  undersigned,  that  lnc  wrongs  of  which  the  Unit- 
ed States  have  to  complain,  althouj,'h  in  some  aspects  very  grievous 
to  our  interests,  and,  in  many,  hmniliating  to  our  pride,  were  yet  ol  ii 
nature,  which,  in  the  present  sutc  of  tijc  world,  cither  would  not  jus 
tify  war,  or  which  war  would  not  remedy.     Thus,  for  instance,  the 
hovering  of  British  vessels  upon  our  coasts,  and  the  occasional  m- 
aults  to  our  ports,  imperiously  demanded  such  a  systcmatick  applica- 
tion of  harbour  and  sea-coast  defence,  as  would  repel  such  aggrcs 
sions ;  but,  in  no  light,  can  they  be  considered  as  making  a  rcsorl  to 
war,  at  th«  present  time,  on  the  part  of  the  United  States,  cither  ne- 
cessary, or  expedient.     So  also,  with  respect  to  the  Indian  war,  of  the 
origin  of  which  but  very  imperfect  information  has  as  yet  been  giv- 
en to  the  publick.    Without  any  express  act  of  Congress,  an  expedi- 
lion  was  last  year  set  6n  foot  and  prosecuted  into  the  Indian  territo- 
j  y,  which  had  been  relinquished  by  treaty  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States.     And  now  wc  are  told  about  the  agency  of  British  traders, 
as  to  Indian  hostilities.     It  deserves  consideration,  whether  there 
has  been  such  provident  attention,  as  would  have  been  proper  to  re- 
move  any  cause  of  complaint,  either  real  or  imaginary,  which  the 
Indians  might  allege,  and  to  secure  their  friendship.     With  ail  the 
sympathy  and  anxiety  excited  by  the  state  of  that  frontier,  impor- 
tant as  it  may  be  to  apply  adequate  means  of  protection  against  the 
Indians,  how  is  its  safety  ensured  by  a  declaration  of  war,  w  Inch  adds 
the  British  to  the  number  of  enemiis ? 

As  "  a  decent  respect  to  the  opinions  t;f  mankind"  has  not  induceu 
the  two  houses  of  Congress  to  concur  in  declaring  the  reasons,  or 
motives,  for  their  enacting  a  declnration  of  war,  the  undersigned 
end  the  public  arc  left  to  search,  else  where,  for  causes  cither  real  or 
ostensible.  If  wc  arc  to  consider  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
und  the  commiuec  of  the  house  of  Representatives  on  foreign  rela- 
tions, as  speaking  on  this  solemn  occasion  lor  Congress,  the  Lniiei. 
Stales  have  three  principal  topics  of  complaint  agamst  (.rcat-15ri- 
T.in.     Impressments ;— blockades ;— and  ord'.-rs  in  council. 

Concerning  the  subject  of  imprcssmert,  the  undersigned  svmp.i 
diize  with  ovir  unfortunate  seamen,  the  victims  of  this  abuse  of  pow- 
<  r,  and  paiticipate  in  the  national  sensiliility  on  their  account.  1  u  y 
»lo  not  conceal  from  themselves  both  its  importance  and  its  dilliciiliy  ; 
and  they  lu-c  well  aware  hen-  stubborn  is  the  will,  and  how  blnul  th« 
vision  of  powerful  nations,  when  -real  inters  s;-.  grow  into  conirovcr- 

' '  Jim  before  n  rosoil  to  war  for  s.ir'i  ir.rrrcsf.  a  moral  nation  will 
.:onsider  *.iial  ir.  juji,  and  a  wise  n,-.  •.-n  vhai  is  .^spcdient.  U  il.c 
e-:crcise  oi"  ai:V  Aglit  'o  the  full  CN^i^i  of  ii .  iM)sirr.a  nalurt-,  Ix"  m- 
<:';viiolci:l  with  Uic  haiVty  of  ano;!icr  iM'sr'-n,  momlily  scetvs  to  rt;- 


t( 

h 


tl 
•J 

tl 

j 

t! 
t 

0 

c 

a 
s 
h 
II 
t 
s 
b 

V 

t; 

c 

11 
t 

V 

c 
c 

I 

i 

t 

V 
I 

i 
c 

t 
r 

r 

^ 
I 


i 


lot  lobe  nii8tak- 
Jivided  people ; 
1  to  Bucccbs,  hut 
lid  very  general 

which  the  Unit- 
,s  very  grievous 
Ic,  were  yet  of  ;i 
!!•  would  not  jus 
or  instance,  the 
IC  occasional  in- 
cmatick  applica- 
[)el  6uch  aggres 
aking  a  vcsorl  to 
Jtates,  cither  nc- 
ndian  war,  of  tiic 
as  yet  been  giv' 
jrcss,  an  expedi- 
c  Indian  tcrrito- 
rt  of  the  United 
■  Hritish  traders, 
I,  whether  there 
;cn  proper  to  rc- 
inary,  which  the 
p.     With  all  iho 
frontier,  impor- 
ction  ai^aipst  the 
"war,  which  adds 

'  has  not  induced 
the  reasons,  or 
the  undcrsignt'd 
scs  cither  real  or 
iic  United  Slates, 
,  on  foreign  rela- 
;res9,  the  Uniicil 
gainst  (i rcat-Bil- 
council. 

Icrsigned  symp.i 
his  abuse  of  pow- 
ir  account.  Tlu  y 
aiiditsdillkuliy ; 
uul  how  blind  tho 
iw  into  coimovcr- 

nioral  nation  will 
spcdiciit.  If  iIk'. 
-rnu  naiurt',  ix-  '"- 
nlivy  scen-s  to  if- 

''■■sil"i"i  ^"  "•'■<.'.■ 


♦icd.  If  it  be  proposed  lo  \Jiulicatc  any  iiKlabv  wur,  visd<.ni  ur. 
wiands  that  it  should  be  of  u  nature  by  war  lo  be  obtained.  The  in- 
terests connected  with  tlic  sul)]tct  of  inipr*'ssniciii  ai e  un<|ucsti()iia- 
bly  great  to  both  nations  ;  and  in  the  full  txicnt  oral)Sti'act  riylii  as 
asserted  by  eacli,  perhaps  irrr concilablc. 

The  government  of  the  United  States  asserts  the  broad  principle 
that  the  flag  of  tlitir  merchant  vessels  shall  pr6tfct  the  mariners. 
This  privilege  is  claimed,  although  every  person  on  board,  c\ccp: 
the  captain,  may  be  an  nlicn. 

The  Uritish  goverinneni  asserts  that  the  allegiance  of  tluir  sub 
jects  is  inalienable  in  time  of  war,  and  that  their  seamen,  found  on 
the  Bca,  the  common  highway  of  nations,  shall  not  be  protected  bj 
the  flag  of  private  merchant  vessels. 

The  undersigned  deem  it  unnecessary  hero  to  discuss  the  (|Ucslioii 
of  the  American  claim,  for  the  in>munity  of  their  flag.  H\it  they 
cannot  refrain  from  viewing  it  as  a  puinciple,  of  a  nature  very  broad 
and  comprehensive ;  to  the  abuse  of  which  the  temptations  ar< 
strong  and  numerous.  And  they  do  maintain,  that  bcibrc  tiir  c;i- 
lamities  of  war  in  vindication  of  such  a  principle  be  incurred,  all  the 
means  of  negociation  should  be  exhausted,  and  that  alt-.u  every  prac- 
ticable attempt  should  be  made  to  regulate  the  exercise  of  the  right ; 
so  that  the  acknowledged  injury,  resulting  to  other  nations,  should 
be  checked,  if  not  prevented.  They  arc  clearly  of  opinion  that  the 
peace  of  this  happy  and  rising  community  should  not  be  abandoned 
for  the  sake  of  afTording  facilities  to  cover  French  property  ;  Or  to 
employ  British  seamen. 

The  claim  of  Great  Britain  to  the  services  of  her  seamen  is  neithcv 
novel,  nor  peculiar.  The  doctrine  of  allegiance  for  which  she  con- 
tends is  common  to  all  the  governments  of  I'^uropc.  France,  as 
well  as  England,  has  maintained  it  for  centuries.  Both  nations 
claim,  in  time  of  war,  the  services  of  their  subjects.  Both  by  dc  - 
crees  forbid  thoir  entering  into  foreign  employ.  Both  recall  them 
by  proclamation. 

No  man  can  doubt  that,  in  the  present  state  of  the  French  marine 
if  American  merchant  vessels  were  met  at  sea,  having  French  sea 
men  on  board,  France  would  take  them.    Will  any  man  believe  thai 
the  United  States  would  go  to  war  against  France  on  this  account  i 

For  very  obvious  reasons,  this  principle  occasions  little  collision 
with  France,  or  with  any  other  nation,  except  England.  With  tin.' 
Plnglish  nation,  the  people  of  the  United  States  are  closely  assim- 
ilated, in  blood,  language,  intercourse,  habits,  dress,  manners  and 
character.  When  Britain  is  at  war  and  the  U:iited  States  neutral, 
the  merchant  service  of  the  United  States  holds  out  to  British  sea- 
men temptations  almost  irresistable ;— high  wages  and  peaceful  cni> 
ploy,  instead  of  low  wages  and  war-service  : — safety  in  lieu  of  haz- 
ard ; — entire  independence,  in  the  place  of  qualified  servitude. 

That  England,  whose  situation  is  insular,  who  is  cngageit  in  a  war 
ipparently  for  existence,  whose  seamen  aic  licr  bulwark,  should  look 
Mpon  the  effect  of  our  principle  upon  licr  bafety  with  jealousy,  is 
'Ufvitable  j  .^nd  that  sin.  \slll  not  hazard  ;h>-  pravtlcal  (•opscf'[iiciic«'^'- 


i 


of  its  umci^iiliiti'il  exercise,  is  ccrtuiii.  Tlic  (juustion,  ilnrrtfoiT,, 
piTMcntcfl,  (iircclly,  for  the  decision  of  tlic  lhuu;;htful  and  virliioiis 
mind,  ill  this  ciuntry  in— vviiether  war  fur  such  an  abstract  ri|;lit  bu 
jtistifiabic,  before  attempting  to  (ruard  against  its  injurious  tendency 
by  legislative  rc(rulation,  in  failure  of  treaty. 

A  dubiouH  right  should  l>c  advanced  with  hesitation.  Afl  extreme 
right  should  bo  asserted  with  discretion.  Moral  duty  roquircs,  that 
u  nation,  before  it  appeals  to  arms,  should  have  been,  nut  only  true 
to  itself,  but  that  it  should  have  failed  in  no  duty  to  others.  If  the 
t'xcrcisc  of  a  right,  in  an  unregulated  manner,  be  in  effect  a  stand* 
ing  invitation  to  the  subjects  of  a  foreign  power  to  become  deserters 
und  traitors,  is  it  no  injury  to  that  power  ? 

('ertainly,  moral  obligation  demands  that  the  right  of  flag,  like  all 
otiier  human  rights,  should  be  so  used,  as  that,  while  it  protects  what 
is  our  own,  it  should  not  injure  what  is  another's.  In  a  practical 
view,  and  so  long  as  the  right  of  flag  is  restrained  by  no  regard  to  the 
undeniable  interests  of  others,  a  war  on  account  of  impressiyents,  is 
only  a  war  for  the  right  of  employing  British  seamen  on  board 
.American  merchant  vessels. 

The  claim  of  Great  Britain  pretciids  to  no  further  extent,  than  to 
take  British  seamen  from  private  merchant  vessels.  In  the  exercise 
of  this  claim,  her  oiTicers  take  American  seamen,  ^nd  foreign  sea- 
men, in  the  American  service ;  and  although  she  disclaims  such  a- 
buscs,  and  profl'ers  redress,  when  known,  yet  undoubtedly  grievous 
injuries  have  resulted  to  the  seamen  of  the  United  States.  But  thc 
question  is,  can  war  be  proper  for  such  cause,  before  all  hope  of  rca- 
tionable  accommodation  hits  failed  i  Even  after  the  extinguishment 
of  such  hope,  can  it  be  proper,  until  our  own  practice  be  so  regulated 
as  to  remove,  in  such  foreign  nation,  any  reasonable  apprehension  oi' 
injury  ? 

The  undersigned  arc  clearly  of  opinion  that  the  employment  ol 
British  seamen,  in  the  merchant  service  of  the  United  States,  is  as 
little  reconcilcable  with  the  permanent,  as  the  present  interest  of  the 
United  States.  The  encouragement  of  foreign  seamen  is  the  dis- 
couragement of  the  native  Americaji. 

The  duty  of  government  towards  tliis  valuable  class  of  mep  is 
not  only  tu  protect,  but  to  patronize  them.  And  this  canno't  be 
done  more  effectually  than  by  securing  to  American  citizens  the 
privileges  of  American  navigation. 

The  question  of  impressment,  like  every  other  question  relative 
to  commerce,  has  been  treated  in  such  a  manner,  that  what  was 
possessed  is  lost,  wibhout  obtaining  what  was  sought.  Pi  .tensions, 
1  ight  in  theory,  and  important  in  interest,  urged,  witliout  due  con- 
sideration of  our  relative  power,  have  eventuated  in  a  practical 
abandonment,  both  of  what  we  hoped  and  what  we  enjoyed.  In  at- 
tempting to  spread  bur  flag  over  foreigners,  its  distinctive  charac- 
ter has  been  lost  to  our  own  citizens. 

The  American  seaman,  whose  interest  it  is  to  have  no  competi- 
tors in  his  employment,  is  sacrificed,  that  British  seamen  may  havn 
<'(Hial  piivilcgcs  with  himself. 


i 


tion,  ilxM'cforr,, 
il.and  virluoiin 
itract  right  be 
lious  tendency 

.  Aft  extreme 
r  requires,  that 
,  nut  only  true 
thcrs.  If  the 
effect  a  stand- 
:oinc  deserters 

Df  flag,  like  all 
I  protects  what 
In  a  practical 
}  regard  to  the 
pressiyents,  is 
men  on  board 

:xtent,than  to 
n  the  exercise 
id  foreign  sea- 
laims  such  a- 
tedly  grievous 
ates.  But  the 
ill  hope  of  rca- 
Ktinguishment 
e  so  regulated 
;)prehenbion  oi' 

imployment  ol 
;d  States,  is  as 
interest  of  the 
icn  is  the  dis- 

ass  of  mep  is 
his  canno't  be 
B  citizens  the 

istion  relative 
hat  what  was 
Pi  .tensions, 
liout  due  con- 
n  a  practical 
joyed.  In  at- 
nctive  charac- 

re  no  comptti- 
len   mav  havn 


Gv(2l*  since  tUe  United  States  have  bccu  u  nation,  tliis  svibjjct  has 
been  a  matter  of  complaint  and  negotiation  ;  and  every  former  ad- 
ministration have  treated  it,  according  to  its  obvious  nature,  as  a. 
subject  rather  for  arrangement  than  for  war.  It  existed  In  the 
time  of  Washington,  yet  this  father  of  his  country  recommended  no 
such  resort.  It  existed  in  the  time  of  Adams,  yet,  notwithstandin}; 
(he  zeal  in  support  of  our  maritime  rights,  which  distinguished 
his  administration,  war  was  never  suggested  by  him  as  the  remedy, 
During  the  eight  years  Mr.  Jefferson  stood  at  the  helm  of  aiTnlrs,  it 
still  continued  a  subject  of  controversy  and  negotiation  ;  but  it  was 
never  made  n  cause  for  war.  It  was  reserved  for  the  present  admin* 
istration  to  press  this  topic  to  the  extreme  and  most  dreadful  resort 
of  nations;  although  England  has  officially  disavowed  the  right  of 
impressment:,  as  it  respects  native  citizens,  and  an  arra^^gement 
might  well  be  made  consistent  with  the  fair  pretensions  of  such  as 
are  naturalized. 

That  the  real  state  of  this  question  may  be  understood,  the  under- 
signed recur  to  the  following  facts  as  supported  by  official  documents. 
Mr.  King,  when  minister  in  England,  obtained  a  disavowal  of  the 
British  government  of  the  right  to  impress  «♦  American  ssamcn," 
naturalized  as  well  as  native,  on  the  high  seas.  An  arrangement 
had  advanced  nearly  to  a  conclusion,  upon  this  basis,  and  was  brok- 
en off  only  because  Great  Britain  Insisted  to  retain  the  right  on  *'_  the 
narrow  seas."  What,  however,  was  the  opinion  of  the  American 
minister,  on  the  probability  of  an  arrangement,  appears  from  the 
public  documents,  communicated  to  congress  in  the  session  of  1808, 
as  stated  by  Mi*.  Madison  in  these  words,  "  at  the  moment  the  artl- 
*'  cics  were  expected  to  be  signed,  an  exception  of  "  the  narrow 
'*  ecas"  was  urged  and  Insisted  on  by  Lord  St.  Vincents,  and  being 
"  utterly  inadmissible  on  our  part,  the  negotiation  was  abandoned." 

Mr.  King  seems  to  be  of  opinion,  however,  « that,  with  more  time 
"  than  was  left  him  for  the  experiment,  the  objection  might  have 
"  been  overcome."  What  time  was  left  Mr.  King  for  the  experi* 
nient,  or  whether  any  was  ever  made,  has  not  been  disclosed  to  the 
public.  Mr.  King,  soon  after  returned  to  America  :  It  is  manifest 
from  Mr.  King's  expression  that  he  was  limited  iy  point  of  time,  and 
it  is  equally  clear  that  his  opinion  was,  that  an  adjustment  could  take 
place.  That  Mr.  Madison  was  also  of  the  same  opinion  is  demon- 
strated by  his  letters  to  Messrs.  Monroe  and  Pinkney,  dated  the  3d 
of  February,  ISOlT,  in  which  he  uses  thesd  expressions.  "  I  take  it 
"  for  granted  that  you  have  not  failed  to  make  due  use  of  the  ar- 
"  rangcment  concerted  by  Mr.  King  with  Lord  Hawksbury,  In  the  year 
"  1802,  for  settling  the  question  of  impressment.  On  that  occusion 
*'  and  under  that  adminiatration  the  British  firinci/ile  mat  /airly  re- 
'•  nonnced  in  favor  of  the  right  of  our  fag,  Lord  Havtkabury  having 
'^  agreed  to  firohibit  imfireaamenta  on  the  high  sra*,'*  and  Lord  St. 
''  Vincents  requiring  nothing  more  than  an  exception  of  the  narrow 
''■  seas,  an  exception  resting  on  the  obsolete  claim  of  Great  Britain 
'■  to  some  peculiar  dominion  over  them."  Hera  then  wc  have  a  full 
•ickuowlcdn;mcnt  that  Great  Britsvln  w:is  willing  to  renounce   the 


vij^hl  of  impressment,  on  tlio  liii^li  seas,  in   lu\or  ol    our  iluj;  ;— that 
she  was  anxious  to  aviMiiijc  the  subjc-ct. 

It  further  appears  that  t!»c  IJritish  miuistiy  culled  for  an  interview 
with  Messrs.  Monroe   and   Pinkney,  on  this  topic  ;  that  they  stated 
the  nature  of  the  claim,  the  Kind's  prcro;^alive  ;  thut  they  had  con- 
sulted the  crown  olTicers  and  the  board  of  admiralty,  who  all  concur- 
red in  sentiment,  that  under  the  circumstances  of  the  nation,  the  re- 
Unquishment  of  the  right  was  a  measure,  which   the  i!;oveinrncnt 
could  not  adopt,  without  taking  on  itself  a  responsibility,  whicii  no 
iTiinistry  wouUl  lie  willinp:  to  meet,  however  pressing  the  exigency 
might  be.     Tiicy  offered^  however,  on  the  part  of  Great  Britain,  to 
pass  laws  making  it  penal  for  British  coi.imanders  to  impress  Aincr- 
icui  citizens,  on  board  of  American  vessels,  on  the  high  seas,  if  A- 
Tuerica  would  pass  a  iaw,  making  it  penal  for  the  ofliccrs  of  the  U- 
nitcd  States  to  grant  certificates  of  citizenship  to  British  subjects — 
This  will  be  found,  in  the  same  documents,  in  a  letter  from  Messrs. 
Monroe  and  Pinkney  to  Mr.  Madison,  dated  1  Ithof  November,  1806. 
Under  their  peremptory  instructions,  this  proposition,  on  the  part  ol 
Great   Britain,  could  not  be  acceded  to  by  our  ministers.      Such, 
however,  was  the  temper  and  anxiety  of  Enijland,  and  such  the  can- 
dor and  good  sense  of  our  ministers,  that  an  honourable  and  advan- 
iatffou.s'  arran^emcrie  did  take  filacc.     The  authority  of  Mr.  Monroe, 
then  Minis;ter  at  the  court  of  Great  Britain,  now  Secretary  of  State 
und  one  of  the  present  adin!nisiration,-who  have  recommended  wa. 
with  Eiigland,  and  assigned  impressments  as  a  cause,  supports  the 
undersigned  in  asserting,  that  it  was  honourable  and  adrantageous  - 
for  in  a  letter  from  Richmond  dated  the  28th  of  February    1808,  U) 
Mr.  Madison,  the  following  expressions  are  used  by  Mr.  Monroe.— 
"  I  have  on  the  contrary  always  believed  and  still  do  believe  that  th« 
«  ground  on  which  thafintei-est  (impressment)  was  placed  by  th<- 
«  paper  of  the  British  Commissioners  of  8ih   November   1806,  ai.>. 
«  the  explanation  which  accompanied  it,  w(/.v  both  honourable  and  ad- 
ii  vantaL-eou8  to  (he  United  States,  that  it  contained  a  concession  m 
"their  favor  on  the  part  of  Great  Britai:.,  on  the  great  principle  in 
«  contestation,  never  before  made  by  a  formal  and  obligatory  act  oi 
«  their  government,  which  was  highly  favourable  to  their  interest. 

With  the  opinion  of  Mr.  King  so  decidedly  expressed,  with  the 
official  admission  of  Mr.  Madison,  with  the  explicit  declaration  ol 
Mr.  Monroe,  all  concurring  that  Great  Britain  was  ready  to  abaii- 
don  imnressment  on  the  high  ieas,  and  with  an  honourable  and  ad- 
vantagtous  arrangement,  actually  made  by  Mr.  Monroe,  how  can  u 
bo  pretended,  that  all  hope  of  settlement,  oy  treaty,  has  lailoc  :  h-r.s 
cai  this  subv-ct  turnis.v  a  proper  rause  ol  war  i 

With  respLct  to  the  subject  of  biochades,  the  pnncipH-  oi  i.ji^' 
lawofiuitions.^.:.  nsscted  by  the  United  Stales,  i;-:,  that  a  o!oc,.a'k- 
ca-i  only  be  iusi.l.u  <l  .vl.cn  si<pp  ■ii'  a  i>y  a..  .  ic.iuaic  force.  In ^.k- 
ory  tbrs  pJclpl.  -s  a  Iniu  -.1  :  y  ...c:at  iliiiain.  U  is  alicged,hoA- 
cvcr,  iliai/;-;';-"c7'Vr  v.-     ..,iegards  that  pnnciplo.        _ 

The  oru..r  ofhioi  k       ,  which  has  b.en  made  a  spetil;:'  grou.ul  ot 

I  lint  bv  Fran  ■  .  . ,  that  o''  t'ae  I  olh  of  May,  I  mc.     \  et,  si.  an^*; 

^""11  m^y  s'-'^'"'  tlu,  order,  wi.ich  is  now  made   one  ground  ol  vai 


II 


ilu; 


-that 


in  interview 
.  they  stated 
icy  had  cun- 
>  all  concur* 
LiiJii,  the   re- 
i!;overnrncnt 
ly,  whicli  no 
he  exigency 
t  Britain,  to 
[>rcs!i  Anicr- 
h  seas,  if  A- 
rs  of  the  U- 
»  subjects— 
rom  Messrs. 
Linbcr,  1806. 
m  the  part  of 
crs.      Such, 
uch  the  cai!- 
f  and  advuii- 
Mr.  Monroe, 
Uiry  of  State, 
imeiidcd  wai 
supports  the 
Irantagcous  . 
ary    1808, to 
r.  Monroe. — 
licvc  that  tht 
laced   by  tin- 
!r   1806,  am! 
[ruble  and  ad- 
concession  in 
principle  ii» 
gatory  act  oi 
eir  interest." 
scd,  with  the 
Icclaration  of 
ady  to  aban- 
irable  and  aii- 
30,  how  c;in  it 
i  I'ailoi!  :   h'^.v 

ncipl'-   VI  l".a' 

at  a   b'ocl.a'le 

irce.     In  i!i'-- 

allcgedjhoA- 

l!l:-  j^roir.ul  of 

Yel,stian!,:e 

•round  of  v\\\ 


bctwceh  the  tuo  coUuU...,  ua-,,  at  the  tunc  ol  ...  nM  .ssmuf^  ^K^^ 
cd  as  u  act  of  favor  and  conciliation.  On  tlussnl.j.rt  ,l  '^  -  <  ^  ' 
rv  'obe  explicit.  The  vauue  and  indeternunaie  n.am.er  n^  ^^U<-h 
e  \merkL  and  French  gCvernments,  in  tl-^-ni-l  papers^  sp.ak 
nf  this  order  of  blockade,  is  calculated  to  mislead.  An  nnpoi  tancc 
t  attached  ;«  it,  of  ^vhich,  in  the  opinion  of  the  undersr,;ned.it  t*  not 
worthv      Let  the  facts  speak  lor  themselves. 

n  Au^t  t  «04,  the  British  ostahlislud  a  blockade  at  the  en  ranee 
of  the  French  poits,  naming  them,  from  Fecamp  to  Ostend;  and 
?om  their  proKimity  to  the  British  coasts,  and  the  absence  of  all 
complaint,  we  n.ay  L  permitted  to  believe  that  U  was  a  1-5-  ''  "<^^- 
ade  enforced  according  to  the  usages  of  nations.  On  he  16th  ot 
May,  ;S  the  EnglislS"  Secretary  of  State  M'';  f^: -f'fif^^;; -J 
Ministor  at  London,  that  his  government  had  thought  ht  todiuct 
nccciay  measures  to  be  taken  for  the  blockade  of  the  coasts,  river, 
and  ports,  from  the  river  Elbe  to  the  river  Brest,  both  mc  usivc  • 

I,!  point  of  fact,  as  the  tcrma  used  in  the  order  will  show,  this 
paper,  which  has  become  a  substantive  and  avowed  cause  for  non- 
iiitcrcourse,  embargo  and  war,  is  a  blockade  only  of  the  places,  on 
the  French  coast,  from  Ostend  to  the  Seine,  and  even  as  to  these  it 
is  merely  as  it  professes  to  be,  a  continuance  of  a  former  and  ex- 
isting  blockade.  For  with  respect  to  the  residue  of  the  coast,  nadc 
of  neutrals  is  admitted,  with  the  exception  only  of  enemy  s  property 
and  articles  contraband  of  war,  which  are  liable  to  be  taken  without 
a  blockade  ;  and  except  tlic  direct  colonial  trade  ofthc  enemy,  which 
Great  Britain  denied  to  be  free  by  the  law  of  nations.  Why  the 
order  was  thus  extended,  in  its  form,  while  m  effect  it  added  nothmg 
to  orders  and  regulations  already  existing,  will  be  Jviiown  by  advert- 
ing to  papers,  whicl*  are  before  the  world.  In  1 306,  France  had  yet 
colonies,  and  the  wound  inflicted  on  our  feelings,  by  ihcinterferencc 
ofthc  British  government  in  our  trade  with  those  colonies,  had  been 
the  cause  of  remonstrance  and  negotiai-'on.  At  the  moment  when 
the  order  of  May  1 806  was  made,  Mr.  Monroe,  tlm  present  Secreta- 
ry of  Slate,  then  our  minister  plenipotentiary  at  the  Court  of  Ureal 
Britain,  was  Jn  treaty  on  the  subject  ofthc  carryingtrade,  and  judg- 
ing on  the  spot,  and  at  the  time,  he,  unhesitatingly,  gave  his  opinion^ 
that  the  order  was  made  to  favor  American  views  and  interests. 
This  idea  i»  unequivocally  expressed,  in  Mr.  Monroe  s  letters  to 
Mr.  Madison  of  the  irth,  and  20tht  of  May,  and  of  the  9th  of  June, 
1806. 

•  Tlif  tornn  ofihc  order  are  tliese,  "  Tl.«t  tl.c  sai.l  co.ist,  rivers  and  ports  must  be 
••  ,.„„si.!cTC.I  as  Iil..ck«rie.l."  Imt,  "  ll.»t  ..K-h  l,loek«.le  sl.ull  "."t  cxUrul  to  prevent  neu- 
••  ,-,1  shins  i.n.l  vcswis,  Im.I.mi  wilh  >:.)mls,  net  Leiui;  the  piopfrtv  ot  l.is  majesty  s  ene- 
"  mies.  »  ..1  not  beinK  contri.lnin.l  .,f  «a.',  lion.  »i.i.a)..cU.n«  li.e  saul  coasts  and  cntcnne 
RullinR  fiom  tl.e  s;.i.l  livors  mim!  i.uru,  mvew,<l exc-pi  l  .e  coas(.  rivers anS 


"  \y  broken  blockade." 


In  diat  of  the  17th  M.iy,  tsnc,  he 


+  The  J'(pllo«iiin;  art-   iMivifl'.  from  dicfc  Utters.  ,<•-..      i 

rhl:,  speaks  of  thai  b U-.'!'-     f  '^^  "   ■■"•''■••'  '"  "■""' '"  '"'"""""  »"'» Fff^^'-"  tocMcnJ 


__  And  as  late  as  October,  1811,  the  same  Gcntkrr.un,  \MiiinR  :.s 
bccictary  of  Slate  to  the  British  mitiister,  speaking  of  tlic  same  or- 
der of  blockade  of  May,  1806,  says,  «  it  strictly  was  little  moic  than 

^  blockade  of  the  coast  from  Seine  to  Ostend."  "  The  object  was 
'•  to  afford  to  the  United  States  an  accommodation  lespcctintc  the 
•'  colonial  trade." 

It  appears,  then,  that  this  order  was,  in  point  of  fact,  made  to  fa- 
vour our  trade,  and  was  so  understood  and  admitted  bv  the  govern- 
ment of  this  country,  at  that  time  and  since;  that,  instead  of  extend- 
ing prior  blockades,  it  lessened  them  that  the  country  from  Seine 
to  Brest,  and  from  Ostend  to  Elbe  was  inserted  to  open  them  to  our 
colonial  trade  and  for  our  accommodation,  and  that  it  was  never 
tnadc  the  subject  of  complaint,  by  the  American  government,  during 
Its  practical  continuance,  that  is,  not  until  the  first  order  in  council ; 
and  indeed  not  until  after  the  1st  of  May,  1810;  and  until  after  the 
American  government  was  apprized  of  the  ground,  which  it  ^Vas  the 
will  of  France  should  be  taken  upon  the  subject. 

Of  this  we  have  the  most  decisive  proof  in  the  offers  made  under 
the  administration  of  Mr,  Jefferson,  for  the  discontinuance  of  the 
Embargo  as  it  related  to  Great  Britain ;  none  of  which  required  the 
repeal  of  the  blockade  of  May  1806  ;  and  also  in  the  arrangement 
made  during  the  administration  of  Mr.  Madison,  and  under  his  eye 
•with  Mr.  Erskine.  The  non-intercourse  act  of  March  1809,  and 
the  act  "  concerning  commercial  intercourse"  of  May  1810,  vest  the 
President  of  the  United  States  with  the  very  same  power,  in  the 
very  same  terms.  Both  authorise  him  "  in  case  either  Great  Brit- 
"  ain  or  France  sliall  so  revoke  or  modify  her  edicts,  as  that  they 
"  shall  cease  to  violate  the  neutral  commerce  of  the  United  States," 
10  declare  the  same  by  proclamation.  And  by  the  provisions  of  one 
kw  in  such  case,  non-intercourse  was  to  cease  ;  by  those  of  the  oth- 
er it  was  to  be  revived.  In  consequence  of  power  vested  by  the 
first  act,  tlie  arrangement  with  Erskine  was  made,  and  the  revocation 
of  the  oiders  in  council  of  January  and  November  1807  was  con- 
sidered as  a  full  compliance  with  the  law,  and  as  removing  all  the 
anti-neutral  edicts.  The  blockade  of  May  1806  was  not  included  in 
tlic  arraTigemcnt  and  it  docs  not  appear,  that  it  was  deemed  of 
sufficient  importance  to  engage  even  a  thought.  Yet  under  the  act 
ot  May,  1810,  which  vests  the  very  same  power,  a  revocation  of  thia 
lilockade  of  May,  1806,  is  made  by  our  cabinet  a  tine  qua  non  ;  an 
jndiiipensiblc  rtquibitt  !    And  now,  after  theBritish  minister  has 

"  ll;r  I)IockaiIe  Siri.lii.'iMhan  \..is  Ii' ii')rif,)ip  ilitne,  m-vfrthcli:!!!  it  tnkvii  it  from  many 
•'  pui-ts,  u'ri\u!;,  u'.jv.!-  uu'i'i!  iw\fti\,  from  M  Kust  of  O^tcml,  uiiil  West  of  llie  .Seine,  rx- 
'^' fopt  in  uriK-las  ci)iitr:ilwii,l  nf  uar  ami  iMiciuies  iiropvi-ly,  tvliirli  are  u-izublv  wilhuul 
'  l>!(iuU;iilf.  .Villi  ill  like  liinu  of  f\((|iii«)ii,  riiii!JtU'i-iii|;  c\i:ry  mcmy  us  one  |>o«er,  it 
•  iilinils  the  ti-ai't;  of  nuiiliiili,  oitliiii  tin-  t.anic  limits,  to  bi;  free  in  llie  prmlnclions  of 
'■  ( ;  tiuiC3™riiiu-5,  ill  <.;»erv  liMl  the  ijiiucl  ruiilu  li'.twceii  the  rolony  hiiiI  ihu  Iiairnt 
"  <inmti-; .  Ml .  .Miiiifof  mlcln,  " It  c:ii,ii(,t  I.e  dniibttd  lliat  the  note  \»as tliavin  by  the 
'■  ^-ovcriiiiieiit,  III  rtleiviire  to  tlif  '|iii,!i(jii,  :in<l  if  intcmled  as  the  fouuilntiuii  of  »  treaty 
■'  must  lie  vieweil  in  a  nivoi .ihle  li.;;lit."      tin  the  ftMli  of  May,    Mr.  Mnnriie  writes  tii 

,  that  the  niilcr  of  the  I6lh 
I  roll  II"  ».  •>!.''  'lis*  (t 


niuMi  ic  >i<:wi;vi  III  a  I.I1III.IIML'  ii.;;iu.  I  III  tile  iniii  01  .>ia» 
Mr.  Miiilisoti,  that  lie  liml  btfii  ".slrciiglliijiied  in  the  o|iinioii,t 
"  w.T<  ilrawii   with  a  \Ii,m  to  the  ijin  ^tiu||  of  our  iraile  «ith  eiiei 


«! 


■X 


'  tvvcMise!  to  be  !;';Mv  :,nii{x 


!  I,:-'  1- 


ic  same  or- 
j  more  than 
:  object  was 
pcctinj;  tlic 

made  to  fa- 
the  govcrn- 
i  of  extend* 
from  Seine 
hem  to  our 
t  was  never 
iieiit,  during 
'in  council; 
lil  after  the 
h  it  ^Vas  the. 

nade  under 
mce  of  tlie 
cquired  the 
rrangcment 
der  his  eye 
1  1809, and 
10,  vest  the 
>wcr,  in  the 
Great  Brit- 
s  that  they 
ted  States," 
iions  of  one 
:  of  ihcoth- 
:stcd  by  the 
;  revocation 
7  was  con- 
ving  all  the 
included  in 
deemed  of 
idcr  the  act 
tion  of  thi» 
ta  non  ;  an 
linistcr  has 


it  fvum  many 
the  Seiiiet  r.\- 
L-lzublv  wilhuul 
I  one  |io«  vr,  it 
liriHliiclioiis  ot 
ml  ihu  parent 
(tli'uwn  liy  tilt! 
tiun  (till  tri'uty 
piirtHr  writes  tii 
iluoftlie  I6lh 

r».   •>!.''   'Iiat   (( 


U'irci:tl>  avowi;';  il'.ai  i)iis  order  of  Ijlockade  v.oulJ  not  cmuimu. 
al'tt-r  a  revocation  of  tlie  orders  in  council,  wiiluiuta  diu'  ajiplicatioii 
of  UM  adfquuie  force,  the  existence  of  this  bIoc!:adc  is  insisted  up- 
on  as  a  justiiiaMe  cause  of  war,  iiatwitlislindiiifj  iliai  our  govern 
lucnt  admits  a  blockade  is  legal,  to  the  malntcnunco  trf"  which  an  ad- 
equate force  is  .'ipplied. 

The  undersigned  are  aware,  that,  in  justifica'.ion  of  this  new  ground, 
it  is  now  said  il\at  tlic  extension  on  paper,  for  wl>atcver  purpose  in- 
tended, favors  the  principle  of  paper  blockades.  This  however  can 
hardly  be  urged,  since  the  British*  formally  disavow  the  principle  j 
and  since  they  acknowledge  the  very  doctrine  of  the  law  of  naliqns, 
for  which  the  American  administration  contend,  henceforth  the  ex- 
istence of  a  blockade  becomes  a  question  of  fact  :  it  must  depend 
upon  the  evidence  adiluced  in  support  of  t!ie  adequacy  of  the  block- 
ading force. 

From  the  jireceding  statement  it  is  apparent  that,  whatever  there- 
is  objectionable  in  the  principle  of  the  order  of  May  1806,  oi 
in  the  practice  under  it,  qn  ground  merely  American,  it  cannot 
be  set  up  as  a  sufficient  cause  of  war  ;  for  until  France  pointed  it 
out  as  a  cause  of  controversy,  it  was  so  far  from  being  regarded,  as 
a  source  of  any  new  or  grievous  complaint,  that  it  was  actually  con- 
sidered, by  our  government,  in  a  favorable  light. 

The  British  Orders  in  Council  arc  the  remaining  source  of  dis 
content,  and  avowed  cause  of  war.  These  have,  heretofore,  been 
considered  by  our  guvcrnment  in  connexion  with  the  French  de- 
crees. Cbrtainly,  the  British  Orders  in  Council  and  French  decrees 
form  a  system  subversive  of  neutral  rights,  and  constitute  just 
grounds  of  complaint ;  yet,  viewed  relatively  to  the  condition  of  thos( 
powers  towards  each  other,  and  of  the  United  States  towards  both, 
the  undersigned  cannot  persuade  themselves  that  the  Orders  in 
Council,  as  they  now  exist,  and  with  their  present  effect  and  operation, 
justify  the  selection  of  Great  Britain  as  our  enemy,  and  render  ne- 
cessary a  declaration  of  unqualified  war. 

Every  consideration  of  moral  duty  and  political  expedience 
seems  to  concur  in  warning  the  United  States,  not  to  mingle  in  this 
hopeless,  and,  to  human  eye,  interminable  European  contest.  Nci  ■ 
ther  France,  nor  England,  pretends  that  their  aggressions  can  bo 
defended,  on  the  ground  of  any  other  belligerent  right,  than  that  oi 
lurticular  necessity. 

Both  attempt  to  justify  their  encroachments  on  the  general  law  ot 
nation;?  by  the  plea  of  retaliation.     In  the  relative  position  and  pro- 

•  Mr.  Fnsftr  in  Ms  litter  of  the  t:A  .Inly  ISll  to  Mr.  Monroe  thus  slates  tbe  doittinc 
>n»iiitHinftl  hy  his  eovurnnieiit. 

"  (iff  lit  Britninlias  never  attcmplcil  to  dispute  that,  in  ihe  oidinaiy  course  of  the  hi w 
"  of  nations,  no  blockade  can  be  justifiable  or  valiil,  unletss  it  Im:  bui>|)(jrtcil  by  :iii  iiile- 
"  iiuate  forct;  destined  to  luuintain  it  and  to  expose  to  hazard  all  vestuls  attempting  t<i  c- 
"  vade  its  rtperatiou. 

"  Mr.  Foster  in  l.is  letter  to  Mr  Monroe  of  the  26ih  .Inly,  ISM,  alto  says,  "The  bhuk 
"  ade  of  M:iy  IKOfi,  will  not  continue  after  the  repenl  of  the  orders  in  council,  unless  blv 
"  Majesty's  )>(iternment  thall  think  fit  to  sustain  it  by  the  special  application  of  a  etifT' 
"  dent  ra<al  Jorie,  M'd  the  fact  of  its  !'inp  m  rontim""',  cr  not.  will  be  Tiotificil  at  lb>- 
••  lime." 


H 


jwnioni.rstrcngUi  oi  ihr;  United  States  to  cither 'belliKcrtiU,  tliere 
appeared  little  probability,  thai  we  could  compel  the  one  or  the 
other,  by  hostile  operations,  to  abandon  this  plea* 

And  as  the  lielil  ol'  comnicrcial  cntcrprizc,  after  allowing  to  the 
decrees  and  orders  their  full  practical  effect,  is  still  rich  and  exten- 
sive, there  seemed  as  little  nisdoni  as  obligation  to  yield  s')iii.l  ;ind 
certain  realities  for  unattainable  pretensions.  The  ri(;ht  of  n  t.i'i.i- 
tion,  as  existing  in  either  belligerent,  it  was  impossible  for  the 
United  States,  coiisiueni  with  cither  their  duty  or  int^r^st,  to  admit. 
Yet  such  was  the  state  of  the  decrees  and  orders  of  the  respective 
belligerents,  in  relation  to  the  rights  of  neutrals,  tha',  while  on  the 
one  hand,  it  formed  no  justification  to  either,  so  on  the  other,  con- 
current circumstances  formed  a  complete  justification  to  the  United 
States  in  maintaining,  notwithstanding  tliese  encroachments,  pro- 
vided it  best  comported  with  their  ii.tercsts,  that  system  of  impartial 
ncutralitv,  which  is  so  desirable  to  tlu;ir  peace  and  prosperity.  For 
if  it  should  be  admitted,  which  no  course  of  argument  can  maintain, 
that  the  Berlin  decree,  which  was  issued  on  the  21  si  of  November 
180C,  was  justified  by  the  antecedent  orders  of  the  British  admiral- 
iv,  respecting  the  colonial  trade,  and  by  the  order  of  blockade  of  the 
1'  th  of  May  preceding,  yet  on  this  account  there  resulted  no  right 
of  retaliation  to  France,  as  it  respected  the  United  States.  They  had 
expressed  no  acquiescence  either  in  the  British  interference  with 
the  colonial  trade,  or  in  any  extension  of  the  principles  of  blockade. 
Besides,  had  there  been  any  such  neglect  on  the  part  of  the  United 
States,  as  warranted  the  French  emperor  in  adopting  his  principle 
ofrctaliaiion,  yetin  the  exeYcisc  of  that  pretended  right  he  passed 
the  bounds  of  both  public  law  and  decency  ;  and  in  the  very  extrav- 
agance of  that  exercise,  lost  the  advantage  of  whatever  colour  the  Bri- 
tish had  afforded  to  his  pretences.  Not  content  with  adopting  a  princi- 
ple of  retaliation,  in  terms  limited  and  appropriate  to  the  injury  of 
which  he  complained,  he  declared  "all  the  British  Islands  in  a  state 
"  of  blockade  ;  prohibited  all  comnierce  and  correspondence  with 
"  them,  all  trade  in  their  manufactures ;  and  made  lawful  prize  of 
"  all  merchandize,  belonging  to  England,  or  coming  from  its  man- 
"  ufactories  and  colonies." 

The  violence  of  these  encroachments  was  equalled  only  by  the 
insidiousness  of  the  terms  and  manner,  in  which  they  were  pro- 
mulgated. The  scope  of  the  expressions  of  the  Berlin  decree 
was  so  general,  that  it  embraced  within  its  sphere  the  whole  com- 
merce of  neutrals  with  England.  Yet  Decrees,  Minister  of  the 
Marine  of  France,  by  a  formal  note  of  the  24th  December,  180fi, 
assured  our  minister  Plenipotentiary,  that  the  imperial  decree  of 
the  21st  November.  1306,  "  wan  vot  fo  affcrt  our  rommercr,  ivhirii 
i^rvould  still  lie  governed  hij  thr  rules  of  the  treaty  enta/ylikhid 
i^bctiveen  the  tii'o  cfjuiiiriea."  Notwithstanding  this  assurance  how- 
ever, on  the  1 8th  September  following,  Rcgnier,  grand  minister  of 
justice,  declared  "  that  the  intenfi'»i.t  oj  the  Jitn/itror  were  that,hw 
^^  virtue  of  that  decree,  I'rench  anned  vex.sr/s  might  arize  in  neutral 
iivesselx^'eithrrJ'lrir^Ush  /iro/ierty,  or uurehundize  firoceediti!,'  from 
"  the  Kii'^lisk  wntuO'-rn-'es  :.  and  th'i!  ho  hnd  reserved  for  future 


i 


I 


* 


I:> 


pjcrciu,  there 
one    or  tlie 

owinp;  id  titc 
h  atul  extcii- 
L'ld  solid  Miirl 
;ht  of  n  t.i'i.i- 
isiblc  for  ihe 
I'st,  to  admit. 
lie  rcspoctiic 
while  on  the 
c  other,  ton- 
o  the  United 
hments,  pro- 
n  of  impartial 
jp<;rity.  For 
cult  maiTitain, 
>i  November 
tish  admiral- 
nciiadc  of  the 
Itcd  no  right 
s.  They  had 
fcrence  with 

of  blockade. 
)fthc  United 
his  principle 
ht  he  passed 

very  extrav- 
olour  the  Bri- 
)ting  a  princi- 
ihc  injury  of 
nds  in  a  state 
ondence  with 
vful  prize  of 
•om  its  man- 

i  only  by  the 
y  were  pro- 
erlin  decree 
:  whole  com- 
inistcr  of  tlic 
mber,  180fi, 
■ial  decree  of 
mere;  nvlnr/i 
1/  eiita/>li.'-:/icd 
surance  how- 
d  minister  of 
luen-  that,  b\i 
ize  in  neutral 
ctcditi!^  frotii 
cd  for  future 


i'dcunion,  the  (jufstion  '.v/inhrr  l/ny  mii(hr  ?!/,/  /io,^...: ,.,  {^,rins'lv,'. 
'■i  rjf  ufittral  vmHfl.i  ;^^oin;i  to  ',r  from  Kui;t(i7id,  al'/touif/i  thfu  hnl 
<«  no  h:nsU->h  mnnufaclurc.i  'jr  board,"  pretensions  so  ohvioush" 
exceeding  any  measure  of  retaliation,  that,  il"  the  precedent  act-. 
of  the  Britisli  (.overnmcnt  had  aflbrded  to  such  a  resort  any  col- 
our of  ritjht,  it  was  lost  in  the  violence  and  c::iruvai^anco  of  thesi- 
assumed  principles. 

To  the  Berlni  decrees  succeeded  the  Britiih  orders  ni  cuimrii 
of  the  7ih  of  January  1807,  which  were  mersjcd  in  the  orders  <•; 
ihe  lUh  of  November  following.  These  declared  "all  ports 
and  places  belonging  to  France  and  ita  allies,  from  which  the 
British  flajj;  was  excluded,  all  in  the  coloniti.  of  hi-.  Britannic  ma- 
jesty's enemies,  in  u  state  of  blockade  ;  piohihitinv;  all  trade  in 
the  produce  and  manufactures  of  the  said  counirit  s  or  colonies; 
and  makii>g  all  vessels  trading  to  or  from  thcni  and  all  nierclian- 
dis(  on  hoard  subject  to  capture  and  condoinnalion,  with  an  ex- 
cejjtion  only  in  favour  of  the  direct  trade  bciwern  i-.eutral  coun 
tries  and  the  colonies  of  his  majcstyVi  encij\ies." 

These  extravagant  pretensions  on  the  piat  of  Great- Britain 
were  immediately  succeeded  by  others  still  more  extravagant  on 
the  part  of  France.  Without  waiting  for  any  knowledge  of  the 
couise  the  American  government  would  take,  in  reJation  to  the 
Bruisb  orders  in  council,  the  French  Emperor  issued,  on  the  17th 
of  December  following,  his  Milan  decree,  by  which  "  every  ship,  of 
"whatever  nation,  which  shall  have  submitted  to  search  by  an 
"English  ship,  or  to  a  toyage  to  England,  or  paid  any  tax  to  that 
" government,  arc  declared  doiatiouulizid  ri\i\  lawful  prize. 

"The  British  Islands  are  declared  in  a  state pf  blockade,  by  scti 
"and  land,  and  every  ship,  of  whatever  nation,  op  whatsoever  the 
"  nature  of  its  cargo  may  be,  that  sails  from  England,  or  those  of  the 
"  English  colonies,  or  of  countries  occupied  by  English  troops, 
"and  proceeding  to  England,  or  to  the  English  colonies,  or  to 
"  countries  occupied  by  the  English,  to  be  good  prize,"  The  na- 
ture and  extent  of  these  injuries,  thus  accumulated  by  mutual  el- 
forts  of  botli  belligerents,  seemed  to  teach  the  American  statesmen 
this  important  lesson — not  to  attach  the  cause  of  his  country  to 
ene  or  the  other  ;  but  by  systematic  and  solid  provisions,  for  sea- 
coast  and  maritime  defence,  to  place  its  interests,  as  fur  as  its  sit- 
uation and  rcsouvccs  permit,  bcyon<l  the  reach  of  the  rapacity,  or 
ambition  ci  any  European  power.  Happy  would  it  have  been  for 
our  country,  il  a  course  of  policy  so  simple  and  obvious  had  becf 
adopted  ! 

Unu.rtuiiattly  our  admiriistration  had  recourse  to  a  system,  com- 
plicated in  us  nature,  and  ;'icstructive  in  its  eftects  ;  which,  instead 
of  relief  f:om  the  accumulated  ii.jmies  of  forei;,rn  governments. 
served  oi/iy  to  fill  up  wiuit  was  wanting  in  the  meusure  of  cvilv 
abroad  by  artificial  embartassments  at  home.  As  lony-  aj^o  a"<  lli'' 
year  1794,  Mr.  Madison,  the  present  President  of  the  Unitetl 
States,  then  a  member  of  the  Houso  of  Rcpn-.stn'atJse^,  devisee! 
and  proposed  a  system  of  commercial  rcstrictiims,  v.lii'li  had  i'<. 
its  object  the  coercion  of  Orcat-Britam.  be  a  li;  •••.  ■  '■.■  ..";■  '.•'  i  • 


1« 


products  and  oiu-  market }  asserting  that  the  (brmir  was,  in  a 
manner,  essential  to  her  prosperity,  cither  as  necessaries  of  life,  or 
as  raw  materials  for  her  manufactures  ;  and  that,  witliout  the  lat- 
ter, a  great  proportion  of  her  labouring  classes  could  not  subsist. 

In  that  day  of  sage  and  virtuous  forethought  the  proposition  was 
rejected.  It  remained,  however,  a  theme  of  unceasing  panegyric 
among  an  active  class  of  American  politicians,  who  with  a  system- 
atic pertinacity  inculcated  among  the  people,  that  commercial  rc>^ 
strictions  were  a  species  of  warfare,  which  would  ensure  success 
to  the  United  States  and  humiliation  to  Great  Britain. 

There  were  two  circumstances  inherent  in  this  system  of  coer- 
cing  Great  Britain  by  commercial  restrictions,  which  ought  to 
have  made  practical  politicians  very  doubtful  of  its  result,  and 
very  cautious  of  its  trial.  These  were  the  state  of  opinion  in  re- 
lation to  its  efficacy  among  commercial  men  in  the  United  States ; 
and  the  state  of  feeling,  which  a  resort  to  it  would  unavoidably 
produce,  in  Great  Britain.  On  the  one  hand,  it  was  undeniable 
that  the  great  body  of  commercial  men  in  the  United  States  had 
no  belief  in  such  a  dependence  of  Great  Britain,  upon  the  United 
States,  either  for  our  produce,  or  our  market,  as  the  system  im- 
plied. 

Without  the  hearty  co-operation  of  this  class  of  men,  success  in 
its  attempt  was  obviously  unattainable.  And  as  on  them  the  chief 
suffering  would  fall,  it  was  altogether  unreasonable  to  expect  that 
they  would  become  instruments  co-operating  in  support  of  any  sys- 
tem, which  was  ruin  to  them,  and  without  hope  to  their  country. 
On  the  other  hand,  as  it  respects  Great  Britain,  a  system,  pro- 
ceeding upon  the  avowed  principle  of  her  dependence  upon  us,  was 
among  the  last  to  which  a  proud  and  powerful  nation  would  yield. 

Notwithstanding  these  obvious  considerations,  in  April,  1806, 
Mr.  Madison  being  then  Secretary  of  State,  a  law  passed  Con- 
gress, prohibiting  the  importation  of  certain  specified  manufac- 
tures of  Great  Britain  and  her  dependencies,  on  the  basis  of  Mr- 
Madison's  original  proposition.  Thus  the  United  States  entered 
on  the  system  of  commercial  hostility  against  Great  Britain. 

The  decree  of  Berlin  was  issued  in  the  ensuing  November, 
(1806.)  The  treaty,  which  had  been  signed  at  London,  in  Decem- 
ber, 1806,  having  been  rejected  by  Mr.  JeiTerson,  without  bein^ 
presented  to  the  Senate  for  ratification,  and  the  non-importation 
act  not  being  repealed,  but  only  suspended,  Great  Britain  issued 
her  orders  in  council,  on  the  1 1th  November,  1807, 

On  the  31st  of  the  same  month  of  Nov.  Champagny,  French 
minister  of  foreign  affairs,  wrote  to  Mr.  Armstrong,  the  American 
minister,  in  the  words  following.  "  All  the  difficulties,  which 
<•  have  given  rise  to  your  reclamations.  Sir,  would  be  removed 
*<  with  ease,  if  the  government  of  the  United  States,  after  com« 
«<  plaining  in  vain  of  the  injustice  and  violations  of  England,  took, 
«  with  the  whole  coctincnt,  the  part  of  guaranteeing  it  therefrom." 

On  the  I7th  of  the  ensuing  December,  the  Milan  decrees  wcrp 


I 


1-  was,  in  a 
cs  of  life,  Of 
lout  the  iat  • 
ot  subsist. 
>osition  was 
l»  panegyric 
:h  a  systcm- 
iinercial  rc>^ 
urc  success 

cm  of  coer- 

h  ought  to 

result,  and 

inion  in  re- 

ited  States ; 

unavoidably 

undeniable 

States  had 

the  United 

system  im- 

,  success  in 
m  the  chief 
expect  that 
t  of  any  sys- 
;ir  country, 
ystem,  prn- 
ipon  us,  was 
ouid  yield, 
\pril,  1806, 
lasscd  Con- 
d  manufac- 
lasis  of  Mr- 
tcs  entered 
itain. 

November, 
,  in  Decern- 
thout  bein^ 
importation 
itain  issued 

*ny,  French 
e  American 
tics,  which 
!)c  removed 
after  com* 
gland,  took, 
therefrom." 
icrecs  wcrp 


> 


\7 

issiird  on  tlic  part  of  France,  ;iiul  five  days  f.ftcrwards  the  cni- 
l):ii!;o  was  pasH<(l  on  the  part  of  the  Uiiitftl  Si.itcs.  Tluis  wms 
•■(Miiplctotl,  l;y  acts  nearly  cotemporancous,  the  circle  of  commcr- 
ciiii  hostilities. 

After  an  intffc(  tiiul  trial  of  four  years  to  control  the  policy  of 
tlic  tMO  helli(i(,iTi;ts  by  this  systtni,  it  v.us  on  the  jiart  of  the  U- 
iiited  Stiites,  for  u  time,  rclin(|uisl)e(l.  The  act  of  the  1st  of  May, 
1810,  gave  the  iiiitiiority,  however,  to  the  President  of  the  United 
Stales  to  revive  it  ;,gainst  Grout  Britain,  in  case  France  revoked 
her  decrees.  Suili  revocatioti  on  the  part  of  France  was  declared 
hy  the  President's  prociunuition  on  the  2d  Novcmher,  1810  ;  and 
in  consequence  non-intercourse  was  revived  hy  our  adniinistraliun 
against  Great  Britain. 

At  all  times  the  undersigned  have  looked  with  much  anxiety 
for  the  evidence  of  this  revocation.  Tiiey  wished  not  to  question, 
whiit,  in  various  forms,  has  been  so  often  asserted  by  the  adminis- 
tration attd  its  agcrts,  hy  their  directions.  Rut  neither  as  public 
men,  nor  as  citizens,  can  they  consent  that  the  peace  and  pros- 
perity of  the  country  should  he  sacrificed,  in  maintenance  of  a  po-' 
.sition,  which  on  no  principle  of  evidence  they  deem  tcnal)le. 
Tliey  cannot  falsify,  or  conceal  their  conviction,  that  the  French' 
decrees  neither  have  been,  nor  are  revoked. 

Without  pretending  to  occupy  the  whole  field  of  argument 
which  the  question  of  revocation  has  opened,  a  concise  statement 
seen.s  inseparable  from  the  occasion. 

The  condition  on  which  the  non-intercourse,  according  to  the 
act  of  1st  May,  1810,  might  be  revived  against  Great  Britain,  was,' 
on  the  part  of  France,  an  rffcctiial  revocation  of  her  decrees. 
What  the  President  of  the  United  States  was  bound  to  require 
from  the  French  government  was,  the  evidence  of  such  effectual 
revocation.  Upon  this  point  both  the  right  of  the  United  States 
and  the  duty  of  the  President  seem  to  be  resolvable  into  very 
distinct  and  undeniable  principles.  The  object  to  be  obtained 
for  the  United  States  from  France  was  an  effectual  revocation  of 
the  decrees.  A  revocation  to  be  efl'ectual  must  include,  in  the 
nature  of  things,  this  essential  requisite  :— the  wrongs  done  to 
the  neutral  commerce  of  the  United  States,  by  the  operation  of 
the  decrees,  must  be  stopped.  Nothing  short  of  this  could  be  an 
effectual  revocation. 

Without  reference  to  the  other  wrongs  resulting  from  those 
decrees  to  the  commerce  of  the  United  States  ;  it  will  be  suflfi- 
cient  to  state  the  prominent  wrong  done  by  the  Sd.  article*  of  the 

•  This  article  is  in  these  words  :  '   ■    . 

".■let.  III.  The  British  islsuids  are  declnvcd  to  be  in.a  st^te  of  blocknile,  both  hy 
"  land  and  sea.  Kvery  ship  of  whatever  nalinii,  or.wh'atsoever the  iialiii-i;  cf  its  ti'P- 
"  K<>  n>a>'  he,  that  sails  from  the  inirts  ot'  Kngland,  or  those  of  the  Kii);lisli  ci)liiiiie» 


18 

Milan  ttcrrce.  Tlic  nature  of  tliis  wron;;  essentially  consisted  h; 
the  uuthorily  given  to  I'ri-nch  ships  of  xvnr  aiid  pr  vatccrs  lo  miikc 
prizi-  at  scu  of  every  neutral  vessel,  suilini;;  lo  or  from  any  of 
tlie  English  possessions. '  The  authority  to  captMrc  was  the  very 
essence  of  the  v.ron^.  It  follows  therefore,  thul  nn  vJJ'rciual  »•(?.'-- 
cation  rtqvi>ud  that  the  authori'u  to  cafitnrr  fihould  be  atniiil/rd. 
Granting  therefore,  for  the  sake  of  arjjiiment  (what  from  its  terms 
and  its  r.atnre  was  cerfaitity  not  the  case)  that  the  noted  letter  of 
the  Duke  of  Cadore  of  the  5th  of  Au!i;nBt  1810  held  forth  a  revo- 
cation, }i;ood  in  point  of  form,  and  unconditional,  yet  it  '•rns  not 
that  i-Jftctnal  revncation  for  which  the  act  of  Isl  May  1810  alone 
authorised  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  issue  his  procla- 
mation, vntcan  in  co>inr</u<  nrr  of  that  letter  the  authority  to  cu/i' 
turr  ivaa  anniiilcd.  The  letter  itself  is  no  annulment  of  the  a»i- 
thority  to  capture,  and  it  is  notorious  that  no  evidence  of  the  an- 
nulment of  this  authority  to  capture  ever  has  been  adduced.  It 
has  not  even  been  pretended.  On  the  contrary  there  is  deci- 
sive and  almost  daily  evidence  of  the  continued  existence  of  this 
authority  to  capture. 

The  charge  of  executing  the  decrees  of  Berlin  and  Milan  was, 
so  far  as  concerned  his  department,  given  by  the  terms  of  thost: 
decrees  to  the  French  minister  of  Marine.  According  to  estab- 
lished principles  of  general  law,  the  imperid  act  which  gave  the 
authority  must  be  annulled  by  another  imperial  act,  ccjually  for- 
mal and'solemn  ;  or  at  leust  the  authority  to  capture  i:\uist  be  coun- 
termanded by  some  order  or  instruction  from  the  niinistcr  of 
marine.  Nothing  short  of  this  could  annul  the  authority  accord- 
ing to  the  rule  of  the  sea  service.  Was  such  annulling  act  ever 
issued  by  the  French  Emperor  ?  Were  any  such  countermand- 
ing orders  or  instructions  ever  given  by  the  French  minister  of 
marine  ?  In  exercising  a  trust,  committed  to  him  by  the  legisla- 
ture, on  a  point  so  interesting  to  the  neutral  commerce  of  the 
United  States,  and  so  important  to  the  peace  of  tho  nation,  was  it 
not  the  duty  of  the  President  to  have  the  evidence  of  such  annul- 
ment, before  the  issuing  of  any  proclamation  ?  Has  he  ever  insist- 
ed upon  such  evidence  ?  Was  it  of  no  consequence  in  the  relative 
situation  of  this  country  as  to  foreign  powers,  that  the  regular 
evidence  should  be  received  by  our  administration,  and  made 
known  ?  Why  has  a  matter  of  evidence,  so  obviously  proper,  so 
simple  in  its  nature,  so  level  to  general  apprehension,  md  so  im- 
periously demanded  bv  the  circumstances  of  the  case,  been  whol- 
ly omitted  ?  And  why,  if  the  IJcrlin  and  Milan  decrees  are  annul- 
led, as  is  pretended,  does  the  French  emperor  withhold  this  evi- 
dence of  their  annulment  ?  Why  does  he  withhold  it,  when  the 
question  of  revocation   is   presented   under  circumstances  of  so 

much  urgency  ?  ...  ,.  •  •  i 

Not  only  has  it  never  been  pretended  that  any  such  imperial 
act  of  annulment  has  issued,  or  that  any  such  orders  or  instruc- 
tions, countermanding  the  authority  to  capture,  were  ever  given. 


li) 


y  consisted  h: 
tiers  lo  miikf 
'   from  any  ol' 

was  tlic  very 
iJJ'rcfital  rfv'.- 
d  be  anviillrd. 
Toin  its  terms 
loletl  letter  of 

fortli  a  rcvo- 
et  //  'ivas  not 
AV  1810  alone 
uc  his  prochi- 
hority  to  cu/i- 
icnt  of  tlic  an- 
icc  of  the  an- 
udduced.  It 
here  is  deci- 
stcncc  of  this 

tid  Milan  was, 
crms  of  those 
ding  to  cstiih- 
hich  gave  the 
,  e({uully  for- 
r\iHst  be  coun- 
le  minister  of 
hority  accord- 
illing  act  ever 
countermand- 
cli  minister  of 
t)y  the  Icgisla- 
mercc  of  the 
nation,  was  it 
of  such  annuN 
»e  ever  insist- 
in  the  relative 
It  the  regular 
lon,  and  made 
isly  proper,  so 
Dii,  aid  so  im- 
se,  been  whol- 
ees  are  annul- 
ihold  this  cvi- 
l  it,  when  the 
nstances  of  so 

such  imperial 
rs  or  instruc- 
ire  ever  given. 


hut  there  is  dcciblvc  evidence  of  the  reverse  in  the  conduct  of  the 
French  public  armed  ships  and  privateers.  At  all  times  >ince 
Nov  1810,  these  ships  and  privateers  have  continued  to  capture 
our  vessels  and  pi'.periy,  or.  the  high  seas,  upon  the  principles  of 
the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees.  A  numerous  list  of  American  ves- 
sels, thus  taken  since  the  1st  of  Nov.  1810,  now  exists  in  the  of- 
fice of  the  secret.iry  of  state  :  and  among  the  captures  are  several 
vessels  with  their  cargoes  lately  taken  and  destroyed  at  sea, 
without  the  formality  of  u  trial,  by  the  commander  of  a  French 
squadron,  at  this  moment  cruizing  against  our  commerce,  under 
orders  given  by  the  minister  of  marine,  to  whom  the  execution 
of  the  decrees  was  committed  ;  and  these  too  issued  in  January 
last.  In  the  Baltic  and  rvitditcrranean  seas,  captures  by  French 
privateers  arc  known  to  us  by  official  documents  to  have  been 
made,  under  the  authority  of  these  decrees.  How  then  arc  they 
revoked  ?  How  have  they  ceased  to  violate  our  neutral  commerce  ? 

Had  any  repeal  or  modiiication  of  those  decrees  in  truth  taken 
place,  it  must  have  been  communicated  to  the  prixc  coiirts,  and 
would  have  been  evidenced  by  some  variation  either  in  their  rules, 
or  in  the  principles  of  their  decisions.  In  vain,  however,  will 
this  nation  seek  for  such  proof  of  the  revocation  of  the  decrees. 
No  acquittal  has  ever  been  had  in  any  of  the  prize  courts,  upon 
the  ground  that  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  had  ceased,  even  as 
it  respects  the  United  States.  On  the  contrary  the  evidence  is 
decisive  that  they  are  considered  by  the  French  courts  as  exist* 
ing. 

There  are  many  cases  corroborative  of  this  position.  It  is  c- 
nough  to  state  only  two,  which  appear  in  the  official  reports. 
The  American  ship  Julian  was  captured  by  a  French  yrivateer 
on  the  4th  of  July,  1811,  and  on  the  loth  of  September,  iSl  1,  the 
vessel  und  cargo  were  condemned  by  the  council  of  prizes  at 
I'aris,  among  other  reasons,  because  she  was  visited  by  several 
English  vessels.  On  the  same  day  the  Hercules,  an  American 
ship,  was  condemned  by  the  imperial  court  of  prizes,  alleging 
"  that  it  was  impossible  that  she  was  not  visited  by  the  enemy's 
ships  of  war."  So  familiar  to  them  was  the  existence  of  the  de- 
crees, and  such  their  eagerness  to  give  them  ciTect  against  our 
commerce,  that  they  feigned  a  visitation  to  havu.tuken  place,  und 
that  notwithstanding  the  express  declaration  of  the  captain 
and  crew  to  the  contrary.  In  addition  to  which  evidence,  Mr. 
Uussell's  letter  to  the  Secretary  of  State,  dated  8th  May,  1811, 
says,  "it  may  not  be  improper  to  remark,  that  no  American  vea- 
"  sel  captured  since  the  1st  of  November,  1810,  has  yet  been  re- 
"  leased." 

From  this  it  is^apparent,  that  the  commanders  of  the  national 
vessels,  the  privateersmen,  and  the  judge  of  the  prize  couits,  to 
which  may  be  added  also  the  custom  ho-.>se  officers,  who,  as  the 
instruments  of  carrying  into  effect  ih;-  decrees,  must  have  been 
nude  acquainted  with  the  repeal  had  it  existed*  have  been  from 


ao 


if.W 


M. 


first  lo  last  l(i;noi'iint  of  any  revocation  ;    and  nniformly  acted  upon 
the  piiiic.ipl(^  of  tlu'ir  existence. 

II  otlur  evidince  of  tlie  coitiniird  existence  of  tliosc  decrees 
were  requisite,  the  acts  of  the  French  (;;overnnient  afl'ord  sneli  as 
is  full  and  explicit.  Champap;ny,  Duke  of  Cadore,  minister  of 
foreign  rehtiiins,  in  his  report  to  his  majesty  the  emperor  and 
kiny,  dated  Paris,  .3d  December,  18 1(),  apcakluf;  of  the  decrees  of 
Berlin  and  Milan,  s..ys  expressly,  *'  As  lonp;  as  Knr;Iand  shall  per- 
"  sist  in  her  orders  in  council,  your  majesty  w/// //f  »•.,/*/  ///  uuiir 
"  (/r>  r('ci~,"  than  which  no  declaration  can  ho  more  direct  not  on- 
ly that  the  nerlli)  and  .>"ilan  d<!crees  are  unrevoked,  hut  tint  they 
ivill  so  remain,  until  the  En>?lish  orders  in  council  are  withdr.iv.n. 
And  in  the  utidress  d»livered,  by  his  imperial  majesty  N..poleon, 
to  the  couicil  of  ccrnmeree  on  the  Slst  March,  181  i,  he  thus  de- 
clares "The  di  crees  of  Hi  rlin  and  Miluii  are  the  fundaniental 
"laws  of  my  empire.  For  the  neutral  navigation  I  consider  the 
"flag  as  ail  extension  of  territory  Tlic  power,  which  sui'crs  its 
"  flajjj  to  be  violated,  cannot  be  considered  asneutr.l.  The  f..tc 
"  of  the  American  comn)cice  wil!  soon  be  decided.  I  will  f:ivor 
"  it,  if  the  United  States  conform  themselves  to  these  decrees. 
"  In  a  contrary  case,  their  vessels  will  be  drivcii  from  my  empire  " 

And  as  late  as  the  loth  of  Anarch  lust,  in  a  report  of  the  Frencii 
miiiister  ol  foreign  relations,  communicuted  to  the  coi  servativc 
Senate,  it  is  declared,  "  that  as  long  as  the  British  orders  in  couii- 
•'cil  are  not  revoked,  and  the  principles  of  the  tre..ty  of  Utrecht 
"in  relation  to  neutrals  put  in  force,  the  decrees  of  Berlin  .nui  Mi- 
"  Jar  ought  to  subsist  for  the  powers  who  suflfVr  their  fl.in  to  be 
"denationalized."  In  none  of  these  acts  is  there  ai  y  exception 
in  favor  of  the  Uniiee  Slates.  And  on  the  contrary  in  the  report 
of  March  last,  by  placing  those  decrees  oi  tne  b.  sis  of  "  the  prin- 
"ciples  of  the  treaty  of  Utrecht,"  the  French  minister  h.s  ex- 
tended the  terms  of  revocation  beyond  all  prior  pretensions. 

Those  who  maintain  the  revocation  of  these  decrees,  as  it  re- 
spects the  United  States,  rely  wholly  upon  the  suspension  of  tho 
decisions  of  the  French  prize  ceurts  in  relation  lo  some  few  ves- 
sels, and  tht  liberation  of  others  by  the  special  direction  of  the 
French  Emperor.  Can  there  be  stronger  prer,u.nptive  evidence 
of  the  existence  of  those  decrees  thaii  this — thul  no  vessel  is  ex- 
cepted from  their  operation  until  after  the  special  exercise  of  the 
emperor's  will  in  the  particular  case. 

If  the  decrees  were  cflTectively  revoked,  there  would  be  no  cap- 
tures ;  or  if  any  were  made,  liberation  would  be  a  matter  of  course 
and  of  general  right,  inste«d  of  neing  an  affair  of  particular  favor 
or  caprice.  Is  it  for  vexations  and  indulgences  like  these,  that 
the  people  of  the  United  Stales  are  to  abandon  their  com- 
merce and  peace  ?  Is  it  for  such  favors  they  arc  lo  invite  the  ca- 
lamities of  war  ?  If  the  resources  of  negotiation  were  exhausted, 
had  the  government  no  powers  remaining  to  diminish  the  causes 
of  national  controversy  by  preventing  abuses  i    After  this^  had  it 


r  acted  upon 

Iiosf  (Ifcrccs 
lui'd  Hiicl)  us 
miiiisior  of 
Miipiror  and 
c  decries  of 
nd  hIiuU  pcr- 

)•;,/*/  ///    Ui)Ur 

iiTct  not  oii- 
lUt  tint  they 
•  withdriwii. 
y  N..polfoii, 
,  he  thus  di'- 
fniidunu-htal 
consider  the 
•li  HinVcrs  its 
I.  The  f..tc 
I  will  Lvor 
esc  decrees, 
my  empire  " 
f  the  Freiicii 
coi  serv.ttivc 
Icrs  \\\  coiiij- 
^  o\  Utrecht 
iriiii  .111(1  Mi- 
ll- fl.in  to  I)c 
ly  exception 
111  the  I  e port 
)f  "  the  prin- 
ister  hiS  ex- 
;tisiuiiH. 
;e»,  us  it  re- 
iision  oi'  the 
me  lew  ves- 
L-ction  of  the 
ivc  evidence 
vessel  is  ex- 
ercise of  the 

d  be  no  cap- 
ter  of  course 
■ticuiur  fuvor 
i  these,  that 
their  com- 
nvitc  the  ca- 
B  exhausted, 
h  the  CUUSC8 
r  thiS)  had  it 


i\ 

no  powers  to  provide  for  iirotn  liii;;  iiidispii';\ble  and  important 
riKlif^i  wiili'-ii'  "•/,'!  S'  '»  ^^"''  <>l'"il'^''i<"'  •  '"  <'"•■  i'i'^:»l''>'  exii'cise 
ofleirislaiive  ..ii<l  ixrculivc  powers,  nii-lil  iiDl  tin;  t.iir  olijects  o» 
iiiU^rest  lor  our  rouiiiry  lu.ve  Ijeeii  secured  couijditely,  hy  eon- 
sisiciit  ai.d  wholesome  pUi'is  i'or  ilel'ei,sive  pn.ieciitiii  >.  And  would 
not  .1  iialionul  posiiion,  i.u'ici.y  d.  r>Mi^.i\r,  yet  iii,i;lily  iespccl..i)lc, 
have  been  less  i^ui  iIkiimhiu  to  the  people  tii.m  the  projected 
War  \  Would  it  not  he  more  IVi.  iidiy  totiie  c,  usi:  ol  our  own  sea- 
men ;  more  s.ilV  loi  our  n..vi!/.itluii  and  contmcrcu  ;  more  lavoiM- 
ble  to  tiie  interests  ol'onr  u;..;riruittirc  ;  less  hazardous  to  national 
character;  more  worthy  of  a  people  jealous  of  their  liheriy  unti 
iiiilepeudenee  ? 

For  cnterinR  into  these  hostilities  is  there  any  thin^j  m  the 
frier.dbhip  or  commerce  of  1  ruiiie  in  its  nature  very  inter- 
csiinj.;  or  alluring;  ?  Will  the  reupini;  of  the  scanty  field  of  I'rencU 
trade,'  which  we  seek,  m  any  w..y  compensate  lor  the  rich  harvest 
of  general  commerce,  which  hv  war  we  are  about  to  abandon  ? 
Wlien  enteinig  into  a  war  with  (ircai  Uritain  for  commercial 
ri^!;hls  ami  interests,  it  seems  impossible  not  to  inquire  into  the 
stale  of  our  commercial  relations  with  I'lance,  and  the  advantages 
the  United  States  will  obtain.  We  may  thus  be  enabled  to  judge 
Whellier  the  |)rize  is  worth  the  contest. 

By  an  ofikial  statement  made  to  con^jress  during  the  present 
session,  it  appears  that  of  13,294,^  JO  dollars  of  domestic  produc- 
tions of  the  Unite  '  Slates,  exported  from  September  Soth.  1810, 
to  October  1st.  i8ll,  only  l,iyt..375  dollars  were  exported  to 
France  and  Italy,  including;  Sicily,  not  a  dependency  of  France. 

France  is  now  deprived  of  all  her  foreign  colonies,  and  by  re- 
viewing our  trade  with  thai  country  for  several  years  past  and  be- 
fore the  ilute  of  the  orders  in  council,  it  will  appear  that,  exclu- 
sive ol  her  foreign  possessions,  it  lias  been  comparatively  incon- 
siderable. The  annexed  statement  marked  A.  taken  from  official 
docunients  shows  the  quantity  of  particular  articles  the  produce 
of  the  Uniteu  States  exported  to  all  the  world,  distinguishing  the 
amount  botn  to  France  and  to  l:liigland  und  her  dependencies  from 
1810  to  mil.  From  this  st.itement  it  appears,  how  small  a  pro- 
portion of  the  great  staples  of  our  country  is  taken*  by  France. 
^Vnilc  France  retained  her  colonies,  her  colonial  produce  found 
its  way  to  the  mother  country  through  the  United  States,  and  our 

*  it  ap|ioai's  by  it  lUut  fur  twelve  j  eiirs  past,  l''i'i(iicc  has  not  taken  in  any  year  luorc 
than 


Cotton        7,1X10,01)0    I'ouiiUs      |      'I'ohiieco        Ifl.tKX)  iloplioads 
Kive  7,U(iU    TiereiH     |      iJrieil  Fish     87,U0U  QuintuU 

Ol'lluiir,  iiavul  stores  and  lumber,  none  ol  any  liii|)ortance. 
It  also  appearb,  by  it,  tliat  tliu  annual  av.-i-agu  taken  by   France  for  twelve  yearn, 

WflSi  of 

Cotton  '.>,CC4,ogU  I'ounils      I      I'obaccu  5,1137  llogslicaila 

Kite  •if-^oi  Tierecs     |      Fish  'U,'AS  Quintals 

Of  late  J  ears  some  of  those  articles  have  .lOt  been  shipped  at  all  directly  to  FrnnCr, 
but  they  have,  probably,  foimd  their  way  diither  through  the  northern  ports  ot 
Kurope. 


iiadr  with  her  in  tiic«  articles  m.t?  not  IiHutisIdi  raijjc.  nur, 
hiiicc  slu-  luis  l)iM'u  (l('|)ri\'Cil  ot"  lirr  lV)ioiu;ii  possessions,  und  »iiicr 
tin:  L'st.tljliHlmittil  of  hci'  niuiiicipal  re^ulutioiis  us  to  licences, 
lliiH  trado  lias  lueii  in  a  Rfcul  de^rt-c  aiiniliilati'd.  With  rcspccf 
tu  colonial  produce  none  can  be  imported  into  l<raiicc  except  iVom 
fiurticular  /lorlH  of  the  United  States,  und  under  .i/icciu/  hn/icrial 
liceucvH.  For  these  licences  our  inci-chanls  must  p  ly  what 
the  agents  of  the  i-'rench  government  think  proper  to  demand. 
As  to  articles  of  our  domestic  produce,  they  are  burthened  v.  itli 
such  exorbitant  duties,  und  arc  subjected  to  such  fe(i;ulatioi)s  and 
restrictions  on  their  importation  us,  in  ordinary  timci«,  will  umoimt 
lo  a  prohibition.  Dn  the  5th  of  Auii;ust  1810,  the  very  day  of  the 
Duke  of  Cadore's  noted  letter,  a  duty  was  iiiipoHcd  on  all  sea- 
island  cotton,  imported  into  Krancc,of  more  than  ti;^hty  cents  per 
pound,  und  on  other  cotton  of  about  sixty  cents  per  pound, 
amounting  to  three  or  four  times  their  ori|;inal  cost  in  the  Uiut- 
ed  States.  And  as  to  tobacco,  the  French  minister  here  on  the 
2Jd  of  July  181 1,  informed  our  ^rovernment,  that  it  was  "  inuler 
ail  administration  (en  rctific)  in  France  ;  the  administration  (he 
says)  is  the  only  consumer  and  can  purchase  only  the  quanti- 
ty necessary  for  its  consumption."  And  by  other  regulations  not 
more  than  one  ,/if'Uftiih  of  all  the  tol)acco  consumed  in  France 
can  be  of  forei)<;n  growth.  The  ordinary  quantity  of  tobacco  an- 
nually consumed  in  France  is  estimated  at  thirty  thouHund  hoga- 
heudn^  leaving  only  about  two  thousand  hogsheads  of  foicign  to« 
bacco  to  be  purchased  in  France. 

In  addiliun  to  these  impositions  and  rcstrirtions,  tho  im|inrtcr  U  not 
left  at  liberty  with  respeet  to  his  return  ears;o.  By  other  edicts  he  is 
compelled  to  vest  the  avails  of  his  importations,  if,  after  pacing  duties 
and  seiy.iiros,  any  remain,  in  such  articles  of  French  produce  and  man- 
ufacture as  the'  French  jrovcrnmcnl  thinks  proper  to  direct.  Two 
thirds  at  least  must  be  laid  out  in  silks,  and  the  other  third  in  wines, 
brandies,  and  other  articles  of  that  country.  To  show  that  this  account 
of  our  coniincrcial  relations  with  France  do  not  rest  on  doubtful  aullitir- 
ity,  the  undersigned  would  refer  to  the  statements  and  declarations  nf 
niir  government  on  this  subject.  In  a  letter  from  Mr.  Smith,  the  late 
Bccrelary  of  State,  to  the  minister  of  France  here,  of  the  ISth  Dceeni- 
ber  1810,  speakinii;  of  our  trade  to  that  country,  under  its  regulations, 
after  the  pretended  repeal  of  the  decrees,  Mr.  Smith  says, "  The  re- 
strictions of  the  Berlin  and  Milan  decrees  had  the  effect  of  rostraiiiins; 
the  American  merchants  from  sending  their  vessels  to  France.  The 
interdictions  in  the  system  that  has  been  substituted,  ai^ainst  the  ad- 
Trission  of  American  products,  will  have  the  effect  of  imposing  on 
them  an  equal  restraint." 

"If  then,  fur  the  revoked  decrees,  municinal  laws,  producing  the 
same  coinmcreial  effect,  have  been  siibstitutea,  the  mode  only,  and  not 
the  measure,  has  nndergone  a*i  alteration.  And  however  true  it  ma^ 
he,  that  the  change  is  lawful  in  form,  it  is  nevertheless  as  true,  that  it 
is  essentially  unfriendly,  and  that  it  docs  not  at  all  comport  with  the 
ideas  inspired  by  your  letter  of  the  2rth  ult.  in  which  you  were  pleasetl 


rablc.  Hur, 
'>,  iind  tiiicc 

0  licoiiccsi, 
itli  rcHpccr 

ixcrpt  IVoiu 
id/  i III /i vial 
p  ly  wliiil 
to  (luiiutiid. 
hpiicd  villi 
ilutions  uiid 
vill  uinount 
r  day  ftl  tlic 
on  ull  Hcu- 
y  cciitH  per 
[)er    poiiiidi 

1  ihc  Uiiil- 
crc  oi\  tl>e 
iTiis  "  uiidur 
itratiuii  (he 
iho  qiuiiiti- 
jlutions  not 

ill  France 
lobucco  an- 
iHund  hogs- 

Ibicign  to« 

]inrter  h  not 
cdiclH  he  is 
a}in^  dii(i(!» 
cc  und  mun- 
irect.  Two 
rd  in  winns), 
this  arc'iMint 
itful  tiulhtir- 
rhiraliouH  nf 
lilh,  (lie  Iiitd 
ISUi  Dcccm- 
regii  lilt  ions, 
», "  The  re- 
rrestraiiiina; 
'iinee.  The 
inst  the  a<l- 
nipoaing  ou 

odiielnf;  the 
nly,  and  not 
'  true  it  mav 
I  true,  that  it 
urt  with  the 
1%'cre  pleasetl 


10  dcclnrc  the  ♦'dlMlnrllv  inonoiniml  inhnlion  of  Itin  imperial  majoHty 
t.rt'iiv>iri;n»h(' (•iiiiimcri'i.il  rcliiiiniM  lirUvfcn  KriUH-i' iitid  Jlic  -il'-d 
States  ill  all  ihv  oliji'ils  ol'lniillf.  wliicli  »liall  cvidi-nlly  inniet'd  IVom 
llicir  U!<riciiltnii'  or'niaiiuractuici,"'  -11'  Fraiioe,  hj  In  r  own  at'(«.  Iia* 
hloi'kail'd  np  liiT  porU  ii'^aiiiil  liie  intnulni-tioii  of'Hie  nrotliirtu  of  the 
I'niled  .Stales,  what  motive  liii>t  tliji^  ^oviTniueiil.  in  a  dlHui^Hioii  s\ith 
a  third  pi»»ver.  to  iiniit  on  the  privili:,"  «••'  ,ttii! ;  to  5''r.iiii'e  •■  M  l.eiie(« 
ihi'  iiidiiieiiieiil  la  'ir^'"  tlie  an  luI'M-iil  uf  a  hlmkad  ■  oi' France,  when, 
iriiniHilltd,  no  Aincrieaii  ears'ii."  emild  olitaia  a  ina'k.l  In  I'.iiy  nf  her 
porlt  ?  In  tiieli  a  Hlale  ol*  lliiiiLjs.  a  hloekadc  of  tin;  eosinl  ri'  Fniiiee 
nonid  l»".  to  the  rniledStal:-^.  ;v>t  niiiiiiportaiit,u9  woi.ld  lieu  hloekade 
ul'llie  enaM  oftiie  Ca^iiian  >*i'a." 

And  Hi»  far  lia«*  the  Kreii-li  o;ii|i 'lor  been  IVoin  relaxin<.  in  wliolo 
or  la  |iart.t!ii'«teoilio'is  ivifiilatittui*  u'*  to  n«,  in  eoine)|miiee  iil'onrHiih. 
mil'i'i.^  ti»  ^i*e  np  «ur  Kii^lish  tn;d!>,  tliut  they  have  been  .oade  n  siih- 
jeet  III'' <((i.'"ial  iiiJilrnelioiH  to  the  minister  who  has  hc;n  sent  to  the 
co'irt  ol*  Fr.uiee.  .Mr.  Monroe,  in  hin  letter  ol*  iiwtnietion«t  to  Mr. 
IJurlow.  of  .Inly  .'1,  Hit.  say-*.  "Voiir  cirly  ami  partieiil.ir  attention 
will  lie  drawn  to  the  ^'iv  »t  unhjeel  of  the  eoniinereial  relation,  whieh  is 
f(»  shIisimI,  in  I'litaie.  between  the  I'nited  Sfules  and  Fraiiee.  Tlie 
IVesident  expeeN  that  the  eomin'reu  of  the  United  Htates  will  Ito 
phiet'd,  in  the  port-*  ol'  Kraiiee,  on  Mueh  a  footiiii;  as  to  alliird  it  ti  fair 
inurliel ;  und  to  the  industry  und  enterprise  ol'their  eili/ens,  a  re;i-.iin- 
alile  encoiiruij'in  'nt.  An  arrnni{enienl  to  tiiis  elVeet  was  looked  for 
iinin:>diatelv  after  the  r'«vocation  of  the  decrees,  but  it  ajipean^  from  llie 
doi'uinciits  in  this  department,  thai  that  was  not  the  case:  on  the 
contrary  thiit  uur  coirnvrec  lina  heen  suhji-cteil  to  thv  ffrealcut  dhvoiir- 
tiifnt,  or  mllifr  tn  the  most  ujiproHAlve  i'eiitraint.i ;  that  the  vesseU, 
which  carried  cofl'ee,  snvjur,  &e.  thoH!<h  sailint?  directly  from  the 
United  States  to  a  French  port,  were  held  in  a  Htate  of  serpiehtrttlion, 
on  the  principle  that  the  trade  was  prohibited,  and  that  the  imporlu- 
tion  of  these  articles  was  not  only  unlawful,  hiit  criminai :  that  even 
the  vessels,  which  carried  the  unii'uestionable  nrodiictions  of  the  ITnited 
States,  were  exposed  to  ijreiit  and  expensive  delays,  to  tedious  invest i- 
gallons  in  nniisual  forms,  and  to  evorhitant  tlitt'm.  In  short,  that  th« 
ordinnry  iisasjes  of  eommeree  b^«t  ween  friendUj  nuthma  were  abandoned." 

Again  Mr.  Monroe,  in  the  same  loiter,  says,  "If  the  ports  of  France 
and  her  allies  arc  not  opened  to  the  commerce  of  the  United  States,  on 
ft  liberal  scale  unJ  on  iair  conditions,  of  what  avail  to  ihein,  it  may  bo 
o'jjed,  will  be  the  revocation  of  the  British  orders  in  cnnncil  ?  In 
conteiidin.i;  for  a  revocation  of  these  orders,  so  fur  as  it  was  un  object 
of  interest,  tlie  United  Stales  had  in  view  a  trade  to  the  continent. 
It  was  H  fair  legitimate  object,  and  worth  contcndiat^  for,  while  France 
oiconriifsed  It.  Bnl  if  s!ii>  shnis  her  ports  on  our  commerce,  or  hur- 
«lens  it  with  heavy  duties,  that  motive  is  at  an  end."  He  a>»iiin  says. 
"  von  will  see  the  injustice,  and  endeavour  to  prevent  the  necessily,  of 
hrin(»in{;,  in  return  fiir  American  cari;o"s  sold  in  France,  an  etjiial 
amiiunt  in  the  produce  or  mmiufnctnyfs  of  that  country.  Xo  such  ob- 
liiration  is  imposed  on  French  merchants  tralins;  to  the  United  Stales. 
They  enjoy  the  liberty  of  sellint;  their  cargoos  fir  cash,  and  taking 


24 


bark  wliaJ  llio^v  pl«ase  from  Uiis  coiiiiln-  in  rr'<iiin.  It  U  iii(li?|ieii«^!il(; 
♦  hat  till'  trade  In.-  frc.',  tiiiit  all  Aiiifrii-an  cili/ciiH  Oiiiju^ci!  in  it  Ik* 
placed  on  t'le  siaine  lootiii^.  and,  vitli  tliis  vien.  that  the  s\>ti'ni  of 
cariyiiis^il  oil, /;^/i(?cJj.se.sgiaiitHd  by  French  af,ents,  be  iiiiinedialciy 
annclled.'' 

The  dc<<imtchcs  from  >Ir.  Barlow,  hy  the  Hornet,  most  clearly  show, 
that  the  e.vjX'ctatious  of  our  ajovcriimeiil  have  not  only  not  hei'n  real- 
ized, hut  even  that  the  promi^fs  ohtaiiied  Iiy  iiisr  minister  are  of  a  very 
nnsatinfaetory  nature.  Indeed,  while  Bonaparte  is  sendinj:  armies  to 
the  north  of  Europe,  totaL'  possession  of  the  jiorts  on  the  IJailie.  anil 
by  his  fast-sailiui;  sipiadrons  is  hurnin:;  American  vessels  on  the  At- 
lantic, all  expectations  of  a  free  trade  from  France  must  be  \torse  than 
vain. 

Notwithstanding  the  violence  of  the  heliis^ercnts,  were  the  restric- 
tions of  our  own  government  removed,  the  comnieree  of  the  I'nited 
States  miu;ht  be  extensive  and  nrohtable.  It  is  well  known,  tl  at  from 
the  (gallantry  of  our  seamen,  if  merchant  vessels  were  alloweil  tn  arm 
and  associate  for  self-defence,  they  would  he  able  to  repel  nnuiy  unlaw- 
ful aggressions.  The  dani;er  of  capture  would  he  diminished,  and  in 
relation  to  one  of  the  hcllit^crents  at  least,  the  risk,  under  such  cir- 
cnmstaneeg,  would  soon  be  measured  by  insurance. 

The  discussions  of  our  government  in  relation  to  the  British  orders 
in  council,  give  a  currency  to  the  opinion  that  they  exist,  without  anv 
modification,  accordins;  to  the  extent  of  the  first  principles  on  whieli 
they  were  issued.  And  the  French  minister,  in  his  last  ctmimunicatioit 
on  this  subject,  nrade  to  the  Conservative  Senate  on  the  10th  of  March 
last,  speaks  of  the  blockade  of  the  loth  of  May,  1800, "  as  annihilating 
the  rii^hts  of  all  maritime  states,  and  puttinc;  under  interdiction  whole 
coasts  and  empires  :*'  and  of  the  orders  in  council  of  I^OT  as  though 
still  suhsistinc;,  and  that  according  to  their  principles  all  vessels  were 
compelled  '*  to  pay  a  tribute  to  England,  and  all  cargoes  a  tariil'to  he" 
customs."  What  the  real  extent  and  principle  of  the  blockade  of  Ma  , 
1800,  were,  have  already  been  explained.  With  respect  to  the  Briti' h 
ordersof  1S0T,  the  truth  is,  that  l»y  a  new  order  issued  on  the  20th  of 
Aj)ril,  1809,  they  were  revoked  or  modified-  Jind  the  obnoxious  transit 
duty,  called  hy  the  French  Minister  "tribute  and  tarift"' was  done 
away.  The  new  order  of  April,  1809,  which  is  now  the  subject  of 
complaint  is  limii<'<!  to  "all  the  ports  and  places  as  far  north  as  the 
river  F-lms,  inclusively,  under  the  government  stvl"n!;  itself  the  Kini;- 
dom  of  Holland,  and  all  ports  and  places  i;nder  the  f»ovcrumeiit  of 
France,  tof^ether  with  the  colonies,  plantations,  and  settlements  in  the 
possession  of  those  s;ovcrnments  resp"etivelv,  and  all  ports  and  places 
m  the  northern  parts  of  Italy,  to  be  reckoned  from  the  ports  of  Orbitello 
and  Pesaro,  inehisively." 

The  elTeet  then  of  the  British  orders  of  blockade,  now  in  force,  is  to 
deprive  ns  of  the  commerce  of  France,  Holhunl  and  a  part  of  Italy. 
And  they  leave  open  to  us  the  commerce  of  all  the  rest  of  the  world. 
What  that  is  some  estimate  may  be  formed  by  ri'cirri'nce  to  the  sub- 
joined table,  which  exhibits  the  state  of  our  commerce  during  IHOft  and 


ft!  iu  il  !)(• 
f  s\«1cni  of 
ii'.inedialciy 

early  ahuw, 
I  IjCl'Il  vi-,\\- 
}v  III"  a  very 
;  :iiii)!i'H  Id 
Hailii'.  aiiil 
s  on  tlio  Af- 
«oist'  than 

llie  rcslric- 
tlif  riiitid 
II,  tl  at  i'roin 
M'{\  in  arm 
lany  iiiiluw- 
;(■(],  and  in 
cr  siicli  cir- 

'ilisli  orders 
ivitlioiit  aiiv 
's  on  nliich 
iimiiiiioiitioit 
h  of  March 
iiinihilatiii^ 
ptioii  whole 
'  as  tlioii<;li 
k'esscis  were 
tnrifl'lo  111'" 
adeof  Ma  . 
I  the  Briti'  h 
the  :.'(>th  ^^^' 
(ions  transit 
"'  was  done 
le  suhjeet  of 
north  as  the 
f  the  Kint;- 
vcrumcnt  of 
nients  in  the 
*  and  places 
ofOrhitelln 

1  force,  is  to 
lart  nf  Italy, 
f  the  world. 
c  to  the  snb- 
Ing  IHOa  and 


2b 

ISO?— The  two  last  years  antecedent  to  the  opcrati«n  of  onr  restrictive 
system.  By  that  table  it  appears  that  the  value  of  the  exports  ol  onr 
domestic  products  to  France,  Holland,  and  Italy  was,  during  those  tivo 
▼ears,*  at  an  average  only  of  about  six  and  a  half  millions  of  dollars. 
Whereas  the  average  of  our  domestic  exports  to  all  other  parts  ol  the 
%vorld,  and  which  arc  now  left  free  to  us,  notwithstanding  the  eftcct  ol 
the  British  orders  in  council, exceed  thirty-eight  millions!  Ho  extensive  a 
coramcree  it  is  proposed  to  surrender  for  the  restricted  trade  the  t  rench 
emperor  will  allow.  A  trade  burdened  by  impositions,  or  harrassed  by 
vexations  from  French  domination  and  French  Douanin-s  or  custom 
house  officers,  in  almost  every  port  of  continental  Europe. 

As  in  the  scale  of  commercial  advantages  France  has  little  to  ofler 
in  return  for  the  many  obvious  hazards,  which  according  to  the  wish 
of  her  Emperor  the  United  States  are  about  to  incur  j  so,  in  the  moral 
estimate  of  national  prospects,  there  is  little  character  to  gam  or  con- 
solation to  expect  in  the  dark  scene  of  things  on  which  we  are  entering. 

A  nation,  like  th?  United  States,  happy  in  its  great  local  relations  5 
removed  from  the  bloody  theatre  of  Europe ;  with  a  maritime  border, 
opening  vast  fields  for  cnterprizc  ;—willi  territorial  possessions,  ex- 
ceeding every  real  want  ;-!-its  firesides  safe  j—its  altars  umlefiled;— 
from  invasion  nothing  to  fear ;— from  acquisition  nothing  to  hope;— 
how  shall  such  a  nation  look  to  heaven  for  its  smiles,  while  throwing 
away,  as  though  they  were  worthless,  all  the  blessings  and  joys,  which 
peace  and  such  a  distinguished  lot  include  ?  With  what  prayers  eaii 
itaildress  the  Most  High,  when  it  prepares  to  pour  forth  its  youthful 
rage  upon  a  neighbounng  people :  Iroin  whose  strength  it  has  nothing 
to  dread,  from  whose  devastation  it  has  nothing  to  gain  ? 

Ifour  ills  were  of  a  nature  that  war  would  remedy^  ifw^ar  would 
compensate  any  of  our  losses,  or  remove  any  of  our  complaints,  there 
might  be  some  alleviation  of  the  suffering,  in  the  charm  of  the  prosjiecf . 
But  how  will  war  upon  the  land  protect  commerce  upon  the  ocean  sf 
What  balm  lias  Canada  for  wounded  honour  ?  How  are  our  mariners 
benefited  by  a  war  which  exposes  those  who  are  free,  without  promis- 
ing release  to  those  who  arc  impress-^'"' 


losev 


*  'talue  of  articles  of  domestic  prwlucc  tspoitcd  to  all  the  woilil. 

Ill  isofi.  i'>  iS'^r. 

Whole  Amouut  841,25.'?,ri27  Wlit.lc  Aiuom.i  S^''.'''"''J.J'''- 


To  France  3,2'2C,C98 
To  HoUaiiil,  now 

part  of  France  3,609,964 

To  luJy  I8S,346 

»  r,028,008 


To  England  ami 

Jciicndunciis      19,179,951 
To  nil  othrr  parts 

of  tlic  world        15,0(11.740 

3i,'.'.1l,7'-'l 


2,710,141 

3,098,234 
250,2j7. 

6,004,f.3J 


27fiir,,or7 
I4,7I0,SS.5 
42,iVil,0n(> 


But  it  iH  said  tliat  war  is  dtituauded  by  Iionoiir.  Is  uatiuuul  liononr  a 
principle  whicSi  thirsts  ui'tpr  vengeance,  nnd  is  appcassi-d  only  by  blood ; 
Mliij)i,  trampliug  on  the  hopes  of  man,  and  spuruin:;  the  law  of  UoiL, 
ttutau^ht  liy  what  is  puKt  and  careless  of  wliat  is  to  eonie,  precipitate* 
itself  into  any  folly  or  inudness,  to  gratify  a  selHsh  vanity,  or  to  satiate 
«oi!ie  unimlluwed  rage  r  If  honour  demands  a  war  with  England,  w!.at 
opiate  lulb  that  honour  to  t>leep  over  the  wrongs  dune  us  by  France  ? 
On  land,  robberies,  seixunis,  iinprisunment!*,  by  French  authority ;  at 
s;-a,  piUuge,  sinkiui;s,  burnings,  under  French  orders.  These  are  no- 
torious. Are  they  unfelt  because  they  arc  French  P  Is  any  alleviation 
to  be  found  in  the  correspondence  unif  humiliations  ofthe  present  Min- 
ister Plenipotentiary  of  the  United  States  at  tlie  French  court }  In  his 
coinmunicatlons  to  our  govcrninent,  as  before  the  public,  where  is  the 
cause  for  now  selecting  France  as  the  friend  of  our  country,  and  Eng- 
land 08  the  enemy  r 

If  no  illusions  of  personal  fouling,  and  no  suliciludc  for  elevation  of 

Slacc,  sliouUl  be  permitted  to  misguide  the  public  councils;  if  it  is  in- 
ccd  honourable  for  the  true  statesman  to  consult  the  public  welfare, 
to  provide  iu  truth  for  the  public  defence,  and  imposu  no  voke  of 
bondage ;  with  full  knowledge  of  tlie  wrongs  indicted  by  the  IPrench, 
ought  the  government  of  this  country  to  aid  the  French  cause,  by  en- 
gaging in  war  against  the  enemy  of  France  ?  To  supply  the  waste  of 
such  a  war,  and  to  meet  the  appropriations  of  millions  extraordinary 
for  the  war  expenditures,  must  our  fcllow-oitizens  throughout  the 
Union  be  doomed  to  sustain  the  burden  of  war-taxes,  in  various  fr.rnis 
of  direct  and  indirect  imposition  ?  For  utKcial  information,  respecting 
the  millions  deemed  requisite  for  charges  of  the  war ;  for  like  informa- 
tion, respecting  the  nature  and  amount  of  taxes,  deemed  requisite  for 
drawing  those  millions  from  the  conmiuuity,  it  is  here  suflicieut  to  refer 
to  estimates  and  reports  made  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and 
the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  and  to  the  body  of  resolutions, 
passed  in  March  last  in  the  House  of  Representatives. 

It  wouhl  be  some  relief  to  our  anxiety,  if  amends  were  likely  to 
b(>  made,  for  the  weakness  and  iMdness  of  tlie  project  by  the  prudence 
<it'  i!u  preparation.  But  in  noWpect  of  Ibis  anomalous  affair  can  we 
M;u-e  the  great  and  distlnetive  properties  of  wisdom.  There  is 
>(-cn  a  headlong  rushing  into  diHicultics,  with  little  calculation  about 
the  means  and  little  concern  about  the  conseipiences.  With  a  navy 
coiii'iaratively  nominal,  we  are  about  to  enter  into  the  lists  against  the 
;c;reati'st  marine  on  the  globe.  With  a  commei-ce  unprotected  and 
■spread  over  every  ocean,  we  propose  to  make  profit  by  privateering,  and 
I'ur  this  endanger  the  wealth  of  which  we  are  honest  proprietors.  An 
invasion  is  threnti.ned  of  the  colonies  of  a  power,  which,  without  put- 
fiiig  a  new  ship  into  commission,  or  taking  inother  soldier  into  pay, 
can  spread  alarm  oY  desolation  along  (he  eictensivc  range  of  our  sea- 
board. The  resources  of  our  country,  in  thi-ir  natural  slate,  great  be- 
yond our  wants  or  our  hopes,  arc  impaired  by  the  eftect  of  artificial 
nsfraints,  Hefiiro  adequate  tortifications  are  preparcMl  for  domestic 
fli'l'ciKc.   holiire  rjinu  or  mnili'^  I'.n'  proviH'-d  r.i!- :»  \\\\r  of  nllack.  whj 


uul  liononr  a 
il)  by  blood ; 
latv  of  UuiL, 
precipitate* 
or  to  satiate 
Inland,  w!.ut 
by  France  ? 
thority ;  at 
licsc  oj'u  no- 
r  uilcvintioH 
resent  Miu- 
urt  ?  In  his 
Inhere  is  the 
y,  and  Eng- 

elevation  of 
if  it  is  in- 
lie  welfare, 
no  voke  of 
Ihe  trench, 
luse,  by  en- 
he  waste  of 
traordiniiry 
ii!^hout  the 
rious  fr.rnis 
I  respecting 
ke  inforina- 
cquisite  for 
lent  to  refer 
easury  and 
resolutions, 

re  likely  to 
le  prudence 
^air  can  we 
There  is 
ition  about 
ith  a  navy 
(gainst  the 
tected  and 
eering,  and 
etors.  An 
ithout  put- 
'  into  pay, 
>four  sca- 
;,  great  be- 
>f  artificial 
r  domestic 
Kai'k.  x\^h^ 


I  ia«  M'jhnt  nwfiiicoiitist  \\lii«his  ln>iiia;Hn''1*"  Ku- 

rSS^s  for  Ne^^fi^f;,^  Wh:i^irS!;p^;aHer^S:a^ 
may  invite  a  retort  ot  '"vasion.     w  i  n .  i  ^^^^^^  ^^^ 

to  us,  innocent  eolon.es  of  Great  »"  '^;»  ^^''^  j  „i  ,,;„,  uke  horror. 

we  be  «-««•»  t'\t"«'orWs,Xas^^^^   F^^  «'"»"  ^^^VT 

'Y  •*  7uZ  the  unXr^sS  c««U  noteonsuler  the  war,  iu  vb,«h  ;^^ 

ltte"dsttSwl;^s^erbL 

by  any  moral  d«ty,  or  any  political  expediency. 
GEOllGE  SULLIVAN, 
MARTIN  CHITTENDEN, 
ABIJAH  BIGELOAV, 
ELIJAH  BRIGHAM. 
WILLIAM  ELY, 
JOSIAH  QUINCY, 
WILLIAM  REED, 

SAML.  TAGOART, 

LABAN  WHEATON, 

LEONARD  WHITE, 

RICHARD  JACj||ON,  Jum. 

ELISHA  R.  pdR'ER, 
EPAPHRODITU^CH  AMPION . 

^.  JNO.  DAVENPORT,  Jun. 

LYMAN  LAW, 
JONA.  O.  MOSELEY, 
TIMO.  PITKIN,  Jun. 
LEWIS  B.  STURGES, 
BENJAMIN  TALLMADGIi, 
H.  BLEECKER, 
J\MES  KMOTT. 


lis 

\SA  FITCH, 

THOS.  R.  GOLD, 

JAMES  MILNOR, 

H.  M.  HIDGELV, 

C.  GOLDSBOROUGH, 

PHILIP  B.  KEY, 
PHILIP  STUART, 
JOHN  BAKER, 
JAMES  BRECKENRIDGE, 
JOS.  LEWIS,  Jun. 
THOS.  WILSON, 
A.  M'BRYDE, 
JOS.  PEARSON. 


m 


U 


-iO 


■M 


# 


n 


NOTE  A. 

QuanlUt/  of  fiirticulur  anidf,,  the  fircduee  of  the  United  States,  ex* 
fvru  (I  (rem  1 800  /o  181  f,  viz  : 


IfiOO 

1801 

1802 

1803 

1804 

1805 

1806 

180r 

1808 

180<)» 

I810t 

18111 


To  all  parts  of  the  w 
lbs. 
17.78;',«0.. 
20,91  l,:,J(.l 
27.501,0';. 
41,105,02.1 
.18,I18.(MI 
40,383,4'.>  I 
37,491,28:; 
«6,6 12,737 
12,064,346 
43,210,225 
93,874,201 
63,186 


COTTON. 


rid. 


To  France. 
lbs. 

none. 

844,728 
1,907,849 
;^,82 1,840 
.5,946,848 
4,504,329 
'/',082,I18 
6,114,358 
2,087,450 
ncne  direct. 

do. 

do. 


RICE. 

To  alt  fiarta  of  the  nuorld.       To  France. 


1800 

1801 

1802 

1803 

1804 

1805 

1806 

1807 

l?»08 

1809 

1810 

1811 


1  icrccs. 
112.036 
94,866 
79,8JJ 
81,838 
78,385 
56,850 
102,627 
94,69.! 
9,2  3  K 
116,907 
131,34) 
119,356 


Tierces. 

none. 
2,724 
7,186 
3,116 

e.oi-i 

1,60) 
.^392 
0,006 
!  cne  direct. 
do. 
do. 
do. 


To  England, 
lbs.       . 

16,179,513 

18,953,085 
2.1,473,925 
27,757,307 
«5,770,748 
32,571,071 
24,356,457 
53.180,211 

7y©92,593 
13,365,987 
36,171,915 
46,872,452 

To  England  if  Colo. 
Tierces. 

77,547 
65.022 
37,393 
33,200 
24,975 
24,737 
39,298 
37,417, 
4,298 
32,ISS 
31,118 
40,045 


•In  1809,  in  consequence  oltl.c  embargo  and  non-intercourse  «rt 
,n  lloirtoTe'r?  "•.'"";"  ";f.'''  «'.ippe«'for  Ma^ra?  J  a^nd  a  ,  a  f 

t  In  1 8 1 1 . 9  millions  of  pounds  of  Cotton  were  shipped  for  Russia. 


i 


->«, , 


To  altjiartt  qfthe  wrld. 

Hhds. 

1800 

78,680 

1801 

103,758 

1802 

77.721 

1803 

86,2S1 

1804 

83,343            ^ 

1805 

71,252 

1806 

83,186 

M07 

62,233 

1808 

9,576 

1809 

53,931 

1810 

84,134 

1811 

35,828 

FISH,  1 

7b  all  porta  qfthe  vtorld 

Qwnuls. 

I80O 

392,727 

1801      i 

^     410,948 

1803 

449,935 

^803 

461,870 

1804 

567,838  ■ 

1805 

514,549 

1809 

537,457 

1807 

473,924 

1808 

155,808 

1809 

345,643 

1810 

380,804 

1811 

216,387^ 

80 

TOBACCO. 

To  France. 
Hhdg. 
143 
5,006 
16,316 
9,815 
14,633 
12,135 
9,182 
2,876 
566 
none  direct, 
do. 
569 


To  France. 
Quintals, 
none. 
1,687 
37,067 
3,491 
3,765 
•  73,004 
19,347 
87,654 
16,144 
none. 
9,150 
38,622   ' 


To  England  i:f  Colo. 

Hhds. 
37,708  ' 
55,256 
39,938 
47,829 
24,700 
18,169 
36,272 
23,047 

2,526 

^    8,965 

24,067 

20,343 

To  England  (/  Colo. 

Quintals. 
'  141,420 

111,030 
92,679 
'  71,495 
76,822 
55,676 
66,377 
55,242 
26,998 
66,566 
55,4o6 
3^,242 


'I. 


Iti 


PICKLED  FISH. 
None  exported  to  European  France. 

FLOUR. 


it;-*. 


To  allforta  qfthe  world 
Bbls. 

1800  653,052 

1801  1,192,444 
ISQ^      1,156,248 

1803  1,311,853 

1804  1 10,008 


.  r  ranee.     To  England  isf  Cole 

Bbls.  Bbls. 

non^.  365,739 

none.  758,023 

14,628  484,886 

18,045  502,006 

1,074  258.515 


m\ 


31 


England  Uf  Colo. 

Hhds. 
S7,7<)8  ' 
55,256 
29,938 
47,829 
24,700 
18,169 
26,272 
23,047 

2,526 

8,965 
24,067 
20,343      ' 


England  Isf  Colo. 
Quintals. 
141,420 
111,030 
92,679 
'     71,495 
76,822 
55,676 
66,377 
55,242 
26,998 
i       66,566 
I'*   55,456 
;        3^.242      . 


r 


i  England  Isf  Cole 
.  BbU. 
365,739 
758,023 
484,886 
502,006 
258.515 


\HU.i 

7W,S13 

none.              235,176 

1806 

782,724 

none.              308,048 

1807 

1,249.119             ^ 

none.               619,918 

1 808 

263,813 

none.        i^^     73,084 

1S09 

846,247 

none,  -i  jf     230,822 

1810 

798,431 

none.               193,477 

1811 

1,445,012 

2,966         -       275,534 

NAVAL  STORES.— TAR. 

To 

all/iarta  of  the  world. 

To  France.    To  England  V  Colo. 

Bbls. 

Bbls.                     Bbls. 

1800 

59,410          T 

none.                   58,793 

1801 

67,487 

none.         ^        62,632 

1802 

37,497 

S'Sr          •^f     21,330 
none.        •   %    75,295 

1803 

78,989 

1804 

58,181    .-*        ^ 

do.                          45,210 

1805 

72,745       • 

do.                          59,439 

1806 

62,723 

|Ao.                          50,663 

i8or 

59,282 

de.                          51,232 

1808 

18,764 

do.                      '    17,700 

1809 

128,090 

do.                          33,072 

ISIO 

87,310 

do.                  »       50,021 

1811 

149,796 

do.                 ^.'    123,034 

TURPENTINEf 

1800 

33,129 

do.                     -    32,580 

1801 

35,413 

do.        *                35,143 

18«2 

38,764 

do.          '                36,769 

1803 

61,178      . ; 

do.                          60,738 

1804 

77,825            ' 

do.        t   *^'       76,950 

1805 

^         95,640 

do.     4'  '''?'••-*    94,328 

1806 

74,731 

do.                         71,854 

1807 

53,451    ■'    '•  ^l-'S-. 

'^di'^            ''.          52,107 

1808 

17,061 

dOt                          17,009 

1809 

77,399          '      ^    V 

m^           ^^    22^85 

1810 

62,912 

do.                          36,995 
d6.                          97,250 

1811 

V00,243            TJ    ;   ; 

■     -*^   ^?«l»i>..       -   ...    * 

-   >    ^  •   4 

t 


:.;  ^■ 


LUMBER. 


Of  the  vast  quantities^,  Lumber  exported  from  i>::oo  ; ,  i.,i 
onljr «  fow  StsTos  itni|  IMjihg  went  to  FrooM)  at  follows,  st?  -. 

Th«uMmd$  <if  Stavn  and  Heading. 


1801 

M 

6,349 

1803 

?'. 

«> 

357 

1804 

• 

321 

1805 

•• 

■ '  '     '>"" 

*   -'   . 

466 

V,     1806 

•;  .  ^;, 

« 

716 

i8or 

1808 

i 

.■  ■■> 

■■■:f;;; 

:#"■ 

cl4. 

.^fV4P' 

3'.t' 

■ 

..'   '- 1 

•^  - '  ■•/ 

".i 

1,    p . 

...., 

^!U4 

li 

■'».<'' 


.i 


■i'y^ 


.-fr      rjp 


'>-^V^i  .    *    v.Ii 


.4»'    *^ 


5?| 


'3.. 


^ 


Ji*  '     I 


ii 


'^;a 


^»r- 


Ulluws,  vi?  : 


549 
557 
121 
166 

I' 14 


ii 


I 

7 


